Digitized  by  tlie  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  witli  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/balancefundamentOOsmitiala 


^p  OrlanHo  %  §bmit^ 


BALANCE:  The  Fundamental  Verity.  Crown 
8vo,  $i.2S  »tei.   Postage,  9  cents. 

ETERNALISM:  A  Theory  of  Infinite  Justice. 
Crown  8vo,  gilt  top,  ^1.35  net.  Postage,  13 
cents. 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  &  COMPANY, 
Boston  &  New  York. 


/^ 


r 


BALANCE 

THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 


y. /s .  fi/i^^-<y: 


^BALANCE 

The 

Fundamental  Verity 


By   Orlando  J.    Smith 


Offering  a  Key  to  the  fundamental  sci- 
entific Interpretations  of  the  System  of 
Nature,  a  Definition  of  Natural  Religion, 
and  a  consequent  Agreement  between  Sci- 
ence and  Religion. 


With  an  Appendix  containing  Critical  Re- 
views by  scientific  and  religious  Writers,  and  a  Reply 
by  the  Author  to  his  Critics. 


BOSrON    AND    NEW    YORK 
Houghton,  Mifflin  and  Company 
The  Riverside  Press,  Cambridge,  1904 


COPYRIGHT  190^  BY  ORLANDO  J.  SMITH 
ALL   RIGHTS  RESERVKD 

Published  October  igo4 


CONTENTS 
I 

The  Power  of  the  Sea  curbs  the  Sea  —  Physi- 
cal Excess  turns  upon  Itself,  defeats  Itself 
—  Excess  is  defeated  also  in  Chance,  into 
which  Physical  Force  does  not  enter  — 
Deficiency  balances  Excess  —  Nature's  Law 
of  Balance  i 

II 
Equilibrium,  in  the  Sense  of  Actual  Rest,  is 
Unknown  —  Nature  is  a  State  of  Ceaseless 
Motion,  regulated  by  Balance  9 

III 
The  Scientific  Interpretations  of  Nature  point 
to  the  Single  Interpretation,  that  Balance 
rules  the  World  —  ' '  To  Every  Action  there 
is  an  Equal  Reaction,"  is  the  Supreme 
Statement  •  15 

IV 
No  Force  works  aimlessly  or  wanders  away 
into   Extinction  —  Balance   is   Supreme   in 
[     V     ] 


CONTENTS 


the  Small,  as  well  as  in  the  Great,  Processes 
of  Nature  —  Every  Physical  Transformation 
includes  Exact  Equivalence  and  Compensa- 
tion 24 

V 

Man's  Part  in  Nature  —  Progress  by  Antag- 
onism —  Nature's  Process  is  by  Test  and 
Trial,  by  unfolding,  changing,  ripping  up, 
undoing  and  redoing  —  Error  dies  in  the 
Struggle  31 

VI 

Action  and  Reaction  in  Human  Affairs  — 
From  Paganism  to  Christianity,  to  Asceti- 
cism, to  the  Crusades,  to  Exploration  and 
Commerce  —  Minor  Interactions  —  Reaction 
from  Words  and  Tones,  Speeches  and 
Thoughts  43 

VII 
The  Law  of  Consequences  —  The  Good  or 
Evil  in  Things  is  discovered  by  Obser- 
vation of  Consequences  —  Morals  are  de- 
termined by  the  Consequences  of  Human 
Actions  54 

[     vi     ] 


CONTENTS 


VIII 
Equivalence  is  the  Test  of  Truth  —  Our  Stand- 
ards are  Instruments  of  Equivalence  —  The 
Balancing  of  Alternatives  —  Reasoning  is  an 
Exploration  of  the  Undetermined,  a  Search 
for  Antecedents  and  Consequences  6i 

IX 

Compensation  in  Human  Affairs  —  Problems 
of  Business  are  Problems  of  Compensation  — 
Right  is  accomplished  by  rendering  Equiva- 
lents —  Duty  is  a  Debt,  literally  a  Due  — 
The  Golden  Rule  is  a  Law^  of  Equivalent 
Exchange  7^ 

X 

Order  is  Regulation ;  Balance  is  Regulator. 
Right  is  Correctness ;  Balance  is  Corrector. 
Justice  is  Compensation ;  Balance  is  Com- 
pensator—  Balance  is  Single  and  Supreme, 
without  a  Mate  or  Equal  So 

XI 

Natural   Justice  —  Compensation    in   Human 
Affairs  involves  a  Cycle  of  Beginning,  De- 
[     vii     ] 


CONTENTS 


velopment  and  Conclusion,  as  Seed  Time, 
Growth  and  Harvest  —  Tyranny  is  an  Anti- 
dote for  Mean  Spiritedness,  and  Courage  is 
the  Antidote  for  Tyranny  —  Through  such 
Rude  Alternations  do  we  move  forward  84 

XII 

Justice  is  Incomplete  in  the  Present  Existence 
—  Our  Life  here  is  as  a  Broken  Part  of  a 
Broader  Life  —  If  Death  ends  All,  then  the 
Mass  of  Mankind  must  live,  toil,  suffer  and 
die  under  a  Condition  of  Hopeless  Injustice      92 

XIII 
The  Essential  Meaning  of  Religion  is  found  in 
the  Agreements,  and  not  in  the  Disagree- 
ments, among  Believers  —  There  are  Three 
Fundamental  Religious  Beliefs:  (i)  That 
the  Soul  is  Accountable  for  its  Actions; 
(2)  That  the  Soul  survives  the  Death  of  the 
Body ;  (3)  In  a  Supreme  Power  that  rights 
Things  99 

XIV 
The    Fundamental    Meaning  of    Religion   is 
revealed  by  its  History  —  Religion   recog- 

[     ^»     ] 


CONTENTS 


nizes  that  Right  rules  the  World  —  Science 

recognizes  that  Balance  rules  the  World  — 

Religion  and  Science  are  in  Harmony,  not 

in  Conflict  119 

XV 

Religion  has  been  misinterpreted  and  per- 
verted —  Science  also  has  been  misinter- 
preted and  perverted  —  Religion  answ^ers 
for  its  Perversions  as  Science,  Truth  and 
Right  ansM^er  for  their  Perversions  —  The 
Value  of  a  Truth  is  measured  by  the  Magni- 
tude of  its  Perversions  124 

XVI 
Measuring  the  Value  of  Religion  by  its  Denial 
—  Only  One  School  of  Thought  denies 
Religion  —  Materialism  is  the  Doctrine  that 
Wrong  rules  the  World  —  Science  and  Re- 
ligion meet  on  Grounds  of  Life,  not  Death ; 
of  Persistence,  not  Annihilation ;  of  Right, 
not  Wrong ;  on  the  Ground  that  the  Laws 
of  Nature  are  Uniform,  not  Contradictory       138 

APPENDIX 
Reviews  of  "Balance" 

By  W.  H.  Mallock  151 

Benjamin  Kidd  154 

[     i-     ] 


CONTENTS 


By  Amos  Emerson  Dolbear,  LL.  D. 

158 

Mangasar  M.  Mangasarian 

160 

Edwin  Markham 

164 

John  Grier  Hibben,  Ph.  D. 

167 

William  Henry  Scott,  LL.  D. 

170 

Evander  B.  McGilvary,  Ph.  D. 

174 

Garrett  P.  Serviss 

176 

Robert  Macdougall,  Ph.  D. 

178 

Charlotte  Perkins  Gilman 

182 

Jacob  Voorsanger,  D.  D. 

184 

George  William  Knox,  D.  D. 

185 

George  Barker  Stevens,  LL.  D. 

189 

George  B.  Stewart,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

191 

Edward  L.  Curtis,  D.  D. 

194 

William  N.  Clarke,  D.  D. 

197 

Alexander  B.  Riggs,  D.  D. 

198 

Gotthard  Deutsch,  Ph.  D. 

201 

Thomas  C.  Hall,  D.  D. 

205 

Philip  S.  Moxom,  D.  D. 

207 

James  S.  Stone,  D.  D. 

209 

Howard  Agnew  Johnston,  D.  D. 

212 

George  C.  Adams,  D.  D. 

214 

C.  Ellis  Stevens,  LL.  D. 

216 

Samuel  Schulman,  D.  D. 

219 

R.  Heber  Newton,  D.  D. 

222 

Samuel  A.  Eliot,  D.  D. 

226 

[     ^     ] 

CONTENTS 


Answers  to  Reviewers 
I.  Minor  Issues 

1 .  The  Rose  and  the  Soul  235 

2.  Swift  and  Slow  Compensations  243 

3.  "  The  Fundamental  Verity  "  248 

4.  "  Out  of  Balance"  252 

5.  Action  without  Reaction  254 

6.  Every  Action  is  Immortal  258 

7.  "  The  Ultimate  Major  Premiss"  259 

8.  The  Galveston  Disaster  261 

9.  "  Minor  "  or  "  Fundamental  "  264 

II.  Fundamental  Issues 

The  First  Question  266 

The  Second  Question  268 

The  Third  Question  272 

Index  281 


[    ^^    ] 


BALANCE 

THE   FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 


The  Power  of  the  Sea  curbs  the  Sea  —  Physical  Ex- 
cess turns  upon  Itself,  defeats  Itself  —  Excess  is 
defeated  also  in  Chance,  into  which  Physical  Force 
does  not  enter  —  Deficiency  balances  Excess  — 
Nature's  Law  of  Balance. 

LONG  ISLAND  extends  into  the 
Atlantic  Ocean  for  more  than  one 
hundred  miles  to  the  east  of  the 
mainland.  The  ocean,  impelled  by  the  pre- 
vailing southwest  winds,  beats  with  great 
force  upon  the  island,  and  would  over- 
whelm it  but  for  a  series  of  sand-banks 
which  lie  next  to  the  sea  and  resist  the 
force  of  its  waves.  Inside  of  these  dunes 
[    ^    ] 


BALANCE 

is  an  almost  continuous  line  of  villages,  the 
inhabitants  of  which  live  in  no  fear  of  the 
sea,  though  they  know  that  one  of  its  storms 
would  inundate  their  low-lying  lands  if  they 
were  unprotected  by  the  dunes. 

Against  the  dunes  the  ocean  wages  un- 
ceasing war,  retiring  a  little  for  rest  at  low 
tide,  renewing  the  conflict  with  the  turn 
of  the  tide,  and  rising  often,  with  the  as- 
sistance of  the  wind,  to  a  furious  assault. 
Each  day  the  ocean  wastes  more  force  in 
its  attacks  than  was  ever  exerted  upon  a 
human  battle-field,  and  each  day  it  suffers 
defeat. 

These  barriers  against  the  sea  were  not 
built  by  human  hands  nor  planned  by  hu- 
man thought,  though  no  modern  engineer 
could  have  designed  a  better  protection 
for  the  land  or  built  with  less  waste  of  ma- 
terial or  with  a  closer  calculation  of  the 
strain  on  the  different  parts  of  the  line 
of  defense.  On  the  western  shore  of  the 
island,  where  the  force  of  the  waves  is 
[    ^    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

weaker,  owing  to  the  proximity  of  the 
mainland,  the  barriers  of  sand  lie  low;  to 
the  eastward  they  rise  higher  to  meet  the 
increasing  power  of  the  sea.  They  cut 
straight  across  large  bodies  of  the  sea  from 
one  point  of  land  to  another,  that  they 
may  offer  no  weak  angle  to  the  enemy. 
The  dunes  are  so  constructed  as  to  present 
upon  their  whole  front  that  exact  angle  to 
the  line  of  the  prevailing  winds  that  will 
make  each  assault  of  the  sea  a  glancing 
blow. 

It  is  the  power  of  the  sea  which  forms 
these  barriers  against  its  own  depreda- 
tions. The  force  of  the  waves  lifts  the  sand 
from  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  depositing  it 
upon  the  shore.  Each  wave  carries  a  little 
sand;  the  stronger  the  wave  the  more  sand 
does  it  carry;  the  severer  the  storm,  the 
higher  does  it  lift  the  sand  upon  the  dunes, 
the  more  impregnably  does  the  ocean 
fortify  its  shores  against  itself.  Why  the 
power  of  the  ocean  gives  that  exact  trend 
[    3     ] 


BALANCE 


to  the  dunes  which  makes  them  strongest, 
is  explained  by  Darwin's  theory  of  natural 
selection :  only  that  form  of  dune  fitted  to 
resist  the  sea  could  survive. 

The  explanation  of  the  dunes  is  simple, 
the  processes  of  their  formation  still  con- 
tinuing and  being  open  to  examination. 
But  the  meaning  of  the  dunes  is  less  sim- 
ple. They  testify  to  the  fact  that  Nature 
curbs  the  excesses  of  the  sea  by  a  process 
quite  reasonable,  indeed  unavoidable.  The 
force  of  the  sea  is  turned  against  the  sea. 
This  fact,  and  numerous  other  facts,  sug- 
gest the  theory  that  in  some  way  all  excess 
Lis  curbed,  or  will  finally  defeat  itself;  that 
Nature  has  no  pendulum  which  swings  in 
one  direction  only. 

In  the  case  of  the  dunes  we  have  an 
illustration  of  physical  force  restraining 
and  defeating  itself.  An  example  of  Na- 
ture's antagonism  to  excess,  into  which 
physical  force  does  not  enter,  is  found  in 
the  laws  of  chance  —  what  we  call  chance 
[    4    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

or  luck  being  quite  as  much  under  the 
control  of  law  as  other  things.  In  a  draw- 
ing of  odd  and  even  numbers,  the  chance 
that  the  odd  number  —  using  the  odd  for 
illustration,  the  chances  of  the  even  num- 
ber being  the  same  —  will  emerge  in  the 
first  drawing  is  one  in  two;  the  chance 
that  the  odd  will  be  drawn  a  second  time 
is  one  in  four;  that  it  will  be  drawn  a  third 
time  is  one  in  eight;  a  fourth  time  one  in 
sixteen,  and  so  on.  There  is  one  chance  in 
1,024  that  the  odd  will  be  drawn  consecu- 
tively ten  times;  one  chance  in  1,048,576 
that  it  will  be  drawn  twenty  times;  one 
chance  in  a  thousand  millions  that  it  will 
be  drawn  thirty  times;  one  chance  in  a 
million  millions  that  it  will  be  drawn  forty 
times.    It  is  as  if  Nature  should  say; 

"  Against  the  consecutive  return  of  the 
odd  number,  I  double  the  barriers  with 
each  drawing.  It  is  not  alone  physical 
excess  which  produces  opposition;  it  is 
excess  in  whatever  form  it  appears  which 
[    5     ] 


BALANCE 

turns  upon  itself,  defeats  itself.  And  my 
law  is  no  more  against  excess  than  against 
deficiency.  The  barriers  against  the  con- 
secutive return  of  the  odd  number  force 
the  return  of  the  delinquent  even  number. 
In  the  long  run,  the  odd  and  even  num- 
bers drawn  shall  be  equalized  repeatedly. 
"  So  far  as  you  overdraw  the  odd,  just 
so  far  you  underdraw  the  even.  If,  in  ten 
drawings,  you  have  drawn  the  odd  seven 
times,  and  the  even  three  times,  then  the 
odd  is  in  excess  by  two  drawings,  and 
the  even  is  in  deficiency  by  two  drawings 
also.  Strictly  speaking,  nothing  is  ever  out 
of  balance  in  my  processes.  That  which 
is  overdone  in  one  direction  is  underdone 
equally  in  an  opposite  direction.  Excess 
can  exist  only  through  a  corresponding 
c  -  deficiency,  and  deficiency  can  exist  only 
.A^  ^ — through  a  corresponding  excess.  A  defi- 
.(^  O  I        cienc)'  in  crops  is  balanced  by  an  excess 

L_— in  prices;  an  excess  in  crops  is  balanced 
by  a  deficiency  in  prices.   Other  balances, 
[    6    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 


0^ 


/' 


^ 


corrective  in  their  nature,  rise  up  also.  A  .  iJK(jLSf<J^^ 
deficiency  in  crops,  with  the  correspond-  ^  c^f^oi^JT 
ing  high  prices,  stimulates  efforts,  such  as 
better  cultivation  and  increased  planting, 
to  overcome  the  deficiency,  while  an  ex- 
cess of  crops  sets  forces  at  work  to  repress 
over-production. 

"  In  my  domain,  all  things  are  genera- 
tive. Out  of  maturity  comes  infancy,  out 
of  darkness  light,  out  of  force  new  forms. 
Thought  breeds,  wrong  breeds,  good 
breeds.  Excess  and  deficiency  breed  also, 
each  begetting  its  own  destroyer."    ^^^= 

We  live  in  a  world  in  which,  if  science  \ 

and  philosophy  do  not  err,  there  is  cease-  \ 

less  motion  everywhere,  and  perfect  rest 
nowhere.  There  is  motion  in  the  heart  of 
the  granite  mountain,  in  the  minutest  por- 
tions of  the  human  body;  motion  great 
and  insignificant,  perceptible  and  imper- 
ceptible, disastrous  and  beneficent.  Is  this 
motion  —  which  is  as  persistent  in  human 
consciousness  as  in  matter  —  under  no  re- 
[     7     ] 


BALANCE 


straint,  no  order,  no  law?  or  is  it  under 
the  control  of  some  power  or  principle 
which  curbs  excess,  restrains  deficiency, 
restores  balance,  grants  compensation? 
Whether  the  return  of  equivalence  and 
compensation  is  not  fundamental  in  Na- 
ture, alike  in  physics  and  in  the  human 
soul — whether  the  rational  foundation  for 
man's  hope  for  a  future  life,  and  for  his 
belief  in  the  rightness  of  the  world-order, 
should  not  be  sought  for  in  the  supremacy 
of  equivalence  and  compensation  —  this  is 
the  subject  of  my  inquiry,  in  which  I  shall 
deal  briefly  with  the  relations  of  balance 
to  physical  science,  and  pass  promptly  to 
the  larger  question,  the  relation  of  com- 
pensation to  human  affairs. 


[     8     ] 


II 

Equilibrium,  in  the  Sense  of  Actual  Rest,  is  Un- 
known—  Nature  is  a  State  of  Ceaseless  Motion, 
regulated  by  Balance. 

WHY  do  I  use  the  word  balance 
instead  of  equilibrium?  Is  not 
equilibrium  more  accurate  than 
balance?  We  observe  much  of  stability, 
poise  and  equivalence  in  and  about  us, 
which  we  call  equilibrium.  But  we  have 
not  observed  perfect  equilibrium.  The 
word  -perfect  is  often  misused.  Nor  have 
the  physicists,  with  their  finest  balances 
and  instruments  of  precision,  found  per- 
fect equilibrium.  They  have  invented 
scales  which,  placed  in  a  vacuum,  isolated 
as  far  as  possible  from  external  disturb- 
ance, weigh  with  remarkable  fineness. 
But  they  have  invented  no  scales  and  dis- 
covered no  conditions  which  enable  them 
to  weigh  with  infinite  fineness.  The  in- 
[    9    ] 


BALANCE 

finite  eludes  us.  If  they  should  improve 
their  balances  so  that  they  may  weigh  one 
of  the  motes  which  we  see  in  a  sunbeam, 
still  they  would  not  reach  perfect  equi- 
librium. They  must  weigh  a  millionth  of 
the  mote  and  a  millionth  of  that  millionth, 
and  so  on  to  infinity',  the  unreachable. 

The  problem  of  perfect  equilibrium  faces 
infinite  perturbations  on  all  sides.  There 
is  no  perfect  vacuum  for  the  scales.  Our 
government  at  Washington  preserves  our 
standard  measures  in  an  even  temperature. 
The  evenness  of  temperature  can  be  main- 
tained to  one  degree,  perhaps  to  the  hun- 
dredth of  a  degree  or  to  the  thousandth, 
but  not  to  the  millionth  or  to  infinite  fine- 
ness. 

Moreover,  the  maintenance  of  a  perfect 
equilibrium  would  be  in  conflict  with  the 
scientific  assumption  that  motion  is  cease- 
less. Perfect  equilibrium  maintained  would 
be  perfect  rest,  that  which  exists  nowhere, 
according  to  the  theory  of  the  continuity 
[    'o    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

of  motion  and  the  persistence  of  force. 
Well  it  is  with  us  and  with  the  world  that 
perfect  rest  does  not  exist!  If  the  blood 
in  my  body  should  stand  at  perfect  equi- 
librium for  a  moment,  I  would  die.  For 
motion  is  life;  its  cessation  would  be  ex- 
tinction. 

Equilibrium  may  be  compared  with  the 
present  in  time,  which,  strictly  speaking, 
is  that  point  in  which  the  past  and  future 
meet  —  a  point  which  is  really  impercep- 
tible, as  the  reader  will  realize  if  he  will 
pause  and  try  to  hold  or  catch  it.  It  is 
gone  before  we  can  grasp  it;  it  is  swifter 
than  the  thought  which  would  compre- 
hend it. 

As  the  present  is  a  fact  in  time,  though 
elusive,  so  we  may  assume  that  two 
weights,  nearly  equal,  swinging  in  a  bal- 
ance, will  pass  and  repass  the  point  of 
equilibrium,  even  of  perfect  equilibrium, 
with  each  alternate  movement  of  the  arms 
of  the  balance.  As  the  present  is  a  point 
[    "    ] 


BALANCE 


which  we  gain  only  to  lose  it,  so  equi- 
librium is  a  point  or  line  which  mo- 
tion crosses  and  recrosses  without  resting 
upon  it. 

When  scientific  men  have  occasion  to 
speak  of  equilibrium  with  exactitude,  they 
use  the  qualifying  term  "approximate," 
meaning  thereby  relative  or  practical  equi- 
librium, nearness  to  perfect  equilibrium,  a 
good  state  of  balance.  And  this  is  what  we 
find  —  a  good  state  of  balance  —  in  Na- 
ture, notwithstanding  her  ceaseless  motion 
and  transformations,  some  transformations 
being  slow,  requiring  millions  of  years, 
some  as  swift  as  the  transformation  of  the 
future  into  the  past,  some  open  to  our  sight, 
some  imperceptible,  the  greatest  being 
sometimes  the  least  perceptible  to  our 
senses,  as  is  the  motion  of  the  earth  in  its 
ceaseless  journey  around  the  sun  at  the  rate 
of  eighteen  miles  a  second,  one  thousand 
and  eighty  miles  a  ipinute  —  as  if  one 
should  fly  from  New  York  to  Yonkers  in 
[    >^    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

one  second,  to  Albany  in  ten  seconds,  to 
Buffalo  in  thirty  seconds,  to  Chicago  in  one 
minute,  to  San  Francisco  in  three  minutes 
—  one  thousand  times  faster  than  an  ex- 
press train,  fifty  times  the  speed  of  a  rifle- 
bullet.  We  are  disturbed  often  by  our  own 
little  projects,  inventions  and  affairs,  but 
we  are  not  fearful  that  the  bulky  earth  will 
come  to  harm  in  its  mad  course,  nor  would 
we  know  that  it  moves  at  such  speed,  or 
that  it  moves  at  all,  if  the  astronomers  had 
not  demonstrated  the  fact.  Nor  does  Her- 
schePs  discovery  that  the  solar  systein  is 
moving  at  the  rate  of  about  twenty  thou- 
sand miles  an  hour  toward  the  constella- 
tion Lyra  disturb  us,  nor  do  we  worry  over 
the  apparently  inevitable  collision  to  follow 
this  movement,  for  the  astronomers  assure 
us  that  that  danger  is  remote,  and  that  it 
will  come,  if  it  comes  at  all,  long  after  this 
earth  has  ceased  to  be  habitable.  We  are 
persuaded  that  the  astronomers  have  dis- 
covered regularity  and  precision  in  the 
[     »3     ] 


BALANCE 


movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  that 
their  forecasts  of  these  movements  are 
trustworthy,  and  that  Nature,  in  the  large, 
in  her  greater  and  grander  manifestations, 
is  ruled  by  order. 


[     H    ] 


Ill 

The  Scientific  Interpretations  of  Nature  point  to 
the  Single  Interpretation,  that  Balance  rules  the 
World  —  "To  Every  Action  there  is  an  Equal 
Reaction,"  is  the  Supreme  Statement. 

MODERN    science    accepts    with 
practical  unanimity  eight  inter- 
pretations of  the  system  of  Na- 
ture, which  are  recognized  usually  as  fun- 
damental : 

I.    To  every  action   there  is  an  equal 
and  opposite  reaction. 

"  If  fire  doth  heate  water,  the  water  re- 
acteth  againe  .  .  .  upon  the  fire,  and  cooleth 
it,"  says  Sir  K.  Digby  (a.  d.  1644).  The 
wagon  pulls  against  the  horse  with  the 
same  strain  that  the  horse  pulls  against  the 
wagon.  The  knapsack  exacts  from  the  sol- 
dier who  carries  it  an  expe'nditure  of  force 
equal  to  its  weight.  Let  me  strike  a  stone 
wall  with  a  gloved  fist,  and  it  will  give 
[     ^5    ] 


BALANCE 

back  a  gloved  blow  in  response.  The  wall 
will  be  gloved,  even  as  my  fist  is  gloved, 
at  the  point  of  contact.  Let  me  strike  hard 
with  bare  knuckles,  and  I  shall  be  con- 
vinced that  Nature  gives  even  to  senseless 
things  some  powers  of  resistance,  of  de- 
fense, even  of  resentment.  If  I  should  be 
thrown  upon  the  stone  wall  by  accident, 
still  the  wall  will  return  the  blow  with 
equal  force.  Nature's  ways  are  exact  — 
strain  for  strain,  blow  for  blow  —  with  no 
allowance  for  intention. 

"  To  every  action  there  is  an  equal  and 
opposite  reaction,"  is  Newton's  Third  Law 
of  Motion,  which  is  accepted  as  the  fun- 
damental axiom  of  physics.  In  this  law 
Newton  has  expressed  also,  I  believe,  the 
fundamental  law  of  Nature  —  that  action 
and  reaction  are  ceaseless,  equivalent  and 
compensatory. 

2.  That  effects  follow  causes  in  un- 
broken succession. 

Strictly  speaking,  the  axiom  of  causa- 
[     »6    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

tion  is  only  another  expression  of  the  axiom 
"  that  reaction  equals  action."  Effects  are 
the  consequences  of  causes,  the  reactions 
from  causes,  the  equivalents  of  causes. 

3.  Gravitation  —  that  every  two  bodies 
or  -portions  of  matter  in  the  universe 
attract  each  other  with  a  force  -propor- 
tional directly  to  the  quantity  of  matter 
they  contain  and  inversely  to  the  squares 
of  their  distances. 

Gravitation,  if  considered  as  a  force  of 
attraction  only,  is  a  force  which  balances 
its  opposite,  repulsion.  The  attraction  of 
the  sun  balances  the  momentum  which 
would  otherwise  project  the  earth  on  a 
straight  line  into  space.  This  balance  holds 
the  earth  steadily  in  its  course  around  the 
sun.  Opposite  forces  of  attraction  and  re- 
pulsion, centripetence  and  centrifugence, 
exist  in  the  world  in  its  greatest  and  small- 
est parts,  alike  in  constellations  and  in 
atoms.  Science  is  compelled  to  recognize 
repulsion  as  being  as  universal  as  attrac- 
[     ^7     ] 


BALANCE 

tion.  To  account  for  these  contrary  forces 
has  so  far  baffled  investigation,  Newton's 
great  discovery  accounting  only  in  part. 
Science  knows  only  this  —  that  these 
forces  exist;  that  they  meet,  offset,  neu- 
tralize and  regulate  each  other,  sometimes 
mildly  or  imperceptibly,  sometimes  vio- 
lently and  with  fearful  convulsions,  and 
that  in  their  influences,  contacts,  struggles 
and  wars  they  hold  all  things  in  balance. 

4.  Evolution  —  including  its  opposite, 
devolution  or  dissolution  —  that  the  fit 
advance  and  the  unfit  decline^  advance- 
ment depending  upon  adaptability^  and 
decline  upon  inadaptability^  to  environ- 
ment. 

There  are  seeds  that  will  grow  in  a  sand- 
bank, others  must  have  loam;  some  will 
grow  only  on  mountain  heights,  others  on 
low  levels;  some  in  low  temperatures, 
others  in  high;  some  organisms  can  live 
only  in  the  water,  others  die  in  the  water; 
some  are  self  protected  against  the  ele- 
[     -8     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

ments,  others  must  be  housed  and  clothed 
—  and  so  on  through  numberless  varia- 
tions in  requirements.  Evolution  is  the 
balancing  of  organisms  with  their  sur- 
rounding conditions,  influences  and  forces. 
Those  that  are  fit  —  that  is,  in  harmony 
with  their  environment  —  will  survive; 
those  that  are  unfit  will  fail.  As  Herbert 
Spencer  says: 

"  Evolution  under  all  its  aspects,  general  and  spe- 
cial, is  an  advance  towards  equilibrium.  We  have 
seen  that  the  theoretical  limit  towards  which  the 
integration  and  differentiation  of  every  aggregate 
advances,  is  a  state  of  balance  between  all  the  forces  to 
which  its  parts  are  subject,  and  the  forces  which  its 
parts  oppose  to  them.^''  —  Biology,  ii.  537. 

5.  That  matter  is  indestructible. 

6.  That  force  is  persistent  and  inde- 
structible, 

Mr.  Spencer  has  said  (First  Principles, 

p.  182)  that  "  the  verification  of  the  truth 

that  matter  is  indestructible"  rests  only 

upon  "  a  tacit  assumption  of  it."   "  A  tacit 

[    19    ] 


BALANCE 

assumption,"  with  no  rational  basis  for  the 
assumption,  would  be  no  verification;  it 
would  be  a  guess.  The  truth  that  matter 
and  force  are  indestructible  rests  upon  a 
better  ground  than  an  assumption;  it  is 
the  inevitable  corollary  of  the  truth,  "  To 
every  action  there  is  an  equal  and  opposite 
reaction."  If  there  could  be  a  single  case 
in  which  matter  and  force  are  annihilated, 
then  Newton's  axiom  would  be  untrue, 
for,  in  that  case,  reaction  would  fail  to  fol- 
low action.  The  turning  of  something  into 
nothing,  by  the  destruction  of  matter  or 
force,  would  break  the  succession  of  cause 
and  eflfect,  of  action  and  reaction ;  and  con- 
sequently the  theories  of  the  indestructi- 
bility of  matter  and  of  force  have  their 
roots  in  Newton's  axiom,  in  the  great  law 
of  consequences,  of  equivalence,  of  com- 
pensation, of  balance. 

7.  That  motion  is  ceaseless,  and  con- 
sequently that  transformation  is  contin- 
uous, 

[    20    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

This,  like  the  theories  of  the  inde- 
structibility of  matter  and  of  force,  rests 
upon  Newton's  axiom.  If  motion  should 
cease,  then  there  could  be  no  reaction 
for  "  every  action."  The  modern  theories 
of  the  persistence  of  matter  and  force, 
and  of  the  ceaselessness  of  motion,  are 
extensions,  interpretations  and  necessary 
consequences  of  the  fundamental  truth 
that  "  every  action  "  is  followed  by  a  re- 
action. 

8.  The  laws  and  -ways  of  Nature  are 
uniform  and  harmonious. 

Uniform  means  of  one  form,  agreement, 
consistency.  Harmony  means  concord,  the 
just  adaptation  of  parts  to  each  other, 
agreement  also,  unison.  We  observe  this 
uniformity,  harmony  and  agreement  to  a 
marked  degree  in  the  fundamental  expla- 
nations of  Nature  which  we  are  now  con- 
sidering. They  teach  us  that  there  is  nei- 
ther halt  nor  break  in  Nature's  processes; 
that  motion  is  ceaseless, transformation  con- 
[    ^'    ] 


BALANCE 


tinuous,  force  persistent,  matter  indestruc- 
tible; that  in  these  ceaseless  transforma- 
tions repulsion  balances  attraction,  effects 
balance  causes  —  in  short,  that  reaction 
equals  action,  that  balance  attends  and 
controls  transformation. 

We  cannot  assume  uniformity  and  har- 
mony without  also  assuming  a  ground  of 
uniformity  and  harmony.  What  is  Nature's 
one  form,  or  rule,  or  way,  or  law,  or  prin- 
ciple, upon  which  her  uniformities  and 
harmonies  rest?  Of  the  fundamental  ex- 
planations of  science,  one  —  Newton's  law 
of  ceaseless  equivalence  and  compensa- 
tion, "  To  every  action  there  is  an  equal 
and  opposite  reaction  "  —  is  the  imperious 
and  supreme  statement,  the  others  being 
subsidiary  or  complementary  to  it,  or  ex- 
planatory of  it. 

These  fundamental  conceptions  of  sci- 
ence point  distinctly  and  with  emphasis  to 
this  higher  and  single  generalization  — 
that  Balance  rules  the  luorld.  Balance  is 
[    "    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

the  key  that  unlocks  them,  the  word  that 
explains  them,  the  principle  that  unifies 
them. 


[     ^3     ] 


IV 

No  Force  works  aimlessly  or  wanders  away  into 
Extinction  —  Balance  is  Supreme  in  the  Small,  as 
well  as  in  the  Great,  Processes  of  Nature  —  Every 
Physical  Transformation  includes  Exact  Equiva- 
lence and  Compensation. 

«T  X  TITHOUT  the  axiom  that  ac- 
\/ \/  tion  and  reaction  are  equal  and 
opposite,  astronomy  could  not 
make  its  exact  predictions,"  says  Spencer 
(First  Principles,  p.  193).  As  astronomy 
discerns  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  bal- 
ance in  the  remotest  regions  accessible  to 
human  vision,  and  in  the  most  tremendous 
phenomena,  so  chemistry  discovers  the 
same  accurate  adjustments  among  the 
smallest  particles  of  matter  of  which  we 
have  any  knowledge. 

Lavoisier  is  called  the  founder  of  mod- 
ern chemistry.    That  which  distinguishes 
his  work  from  the  work  of  his  predeces- 
[    ^4    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

sors  is  the  more  accurate  measurement  of 
the  materials  and  forces  which  are  involved 
in  chemical  changes,  and  a  more  orderly 
view  of  these  phenomena  as  perfectly  bal- 
anced interactions.  His  work  destroyed 
the  theory  of  "  phlogiston,"  which  was  in- 
consistent with  natural  balance  because  it 
introduced  a  mystic  agent  —  "  phlogiston, 
the  spirit  of  fire  "  —  having  unnatural  prop- 
erties contradictory  of  the  law  of  action 
and  reaction. 

The  problem  of  oxidation  puzzled  chem- 
ists in  Lavoisier's  day.  The  rapid  action 
of  fire  and  the  slow  rusting  of  a  metal 
were  seen  to  be  closely  akin,  but  the  cause 
was  elusive.  It  was  necessary  to  learn  that 
the  essential  of  both  processes  i^  oxygen, 
coming  from  the  air  or  some  other  source ; 
and  that  there  is  no  actual  loss  or  gain  in 
the  process  of  oxidation.  This  truth  led 
to  the  broader  knowledge  that,  in  every 
chemical  transformation,  whatever  disap- 
pears in  one  form,  reappears  in  another; 
[    ^5     ] 


BALANCE 


that  every  manifestation  of  force  is  due 
to  a  disturbance  of  balance  among  the 
minute,  invisible  particles  which  we  call 
atoms;  that  no  force  works  aimlessly  or 
wanders  away  into  extinction. 

The  most  recent  discoveries  in  thermo- 
chemistry, in  electro-chemistry,  in  the 
phenomena  of  solution,  and  in  the  realm 
of  molecular  structure,  depend  upon  the 
same  principle:  that  any  apparent  super- 
abundance or  deficiency  indicates  error, 
and  that  the  truth  will  always  reveal  a  per- 
fect correspondence,  equivalence,  and  rec- 
titude of  law. 

The  history  of  chemical  experimentation 
is  full  of  the  most  perfect  illustrations  of 
the  principle  of  equivalence,  which  finds 
its  simplest  expression  in  the  universal 
practice  of  chemists  in  writing  down  every 
chemical  reaction  as  an  equation:  So  much 
of  this  plus  so  much  of  that  equals  the 
result. 

We  shall  search  in  vain  for  any  demon- 
[    26    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

strated  truth  concerning  the  system  of  Na- 
ture, for  any  law,  rule  or  axiom  of  physics, 
which  does  not  rest  fundamentally  upon 
the  equivalence  of  action  and  reaction,  of 
cause  and  effect.  "  The  straight  line  joining 
the  sun  and  planet  must  pass  over  equal 
areas  in  equal  times,"  is  Kepler's  law.  "At 
any  point  in  a  fluid  at  rest  the  pressure  is 
equal  in  all  directions,"  is  Pascal's  prin- 
ciple. "A  body  immersed  in  a  fluid  is 
buoyed  up  by  a  force  equal  to  the  weight 
of  the  fluid  displaced,"  is  the  principle  of 
Archimedes.  "The  angles  of  incidence 
and  reflection  are  in  the  same  plane,  and 
are  equal,"  is  the  law  of  reflection.  "  The 
reciprocal  of  the  principal  focal  length  is 
equal  to  the  sum  of  the  reciprocals  of  any 
two  conjugate  focal  lengths,"  is  the  law  of 
converging  lenses.  "  The  current  is  equal 
to  the  electro-motive  force  divided  by  the 
resistance,"  is  Ohm's  law.  "The  disap- 
pearance of  a  definite  amount  of  mechanical 
energy  is  accompanied  by  the  production 
[    ^7    ] 


BALANCE 

of  an  equivalent  amount  of  heat,"  is  Joule's 
principle.  Observe  how  perfectly  these 
and  the  other  principles  and  laws  of  phys- 
ics agree  with  Newton's  law  of  motion  : 
"  To  every  action  there  is  an  equal diVidi  op- 
posite reaction." 

The  universality  of  equivalence  is 
broadly  expressed  in  the  law  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy:  "When  one  form  of 
energy  disappears,  its  exact  equivalent 
in  another  form  always  takes  its  place,^^ 
This  law,  accepted  by  modern  science, 
leaves  no  ground  for  the  assumption  that 
there  can  be  a  failure  of  equiv^alence  in 
motion  or  transformation. 

Can  we  say  that  the  equivalents  which 
return  persistently  in  motion  and  transfor- 
mation are  compensatory  }  Yes;  the  re- 
turn of  an  exact  equivalent  is  exact  com- 
pensation. Heat  is  the  compensation  for 
the  fuel  that  produces  it;  electricity  is  the 
compensation  for  the  energy  that  is  trans- 
formed into  it;  one  molecule  of  water  is 
[    28    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

the  compensation  for  two  atoms  of  hydro- 
gen and  one  atom  of  oxygen.  A  definite 
amount  of  matter  or  force  pays  for  exactly 
the  same  amount  in  another  form.  That 
which  disappears  and  that  which  succeeds 
are  mutually  compensatory.  Fuel  pays  for 
heat,  and  heat  pays  for  fuel.  The  account 
balances  perfectly.  Nature  has  no  profit 
and  loss  account,  no  bad  debts,  no  failures 
in  compensation. 

The  assumption  that  anything  can  exist 
in  the  physical  world  without  exact  com- 
pensation appeals  to  the  scorn  alike  of 
science  and  of  common  sense.  Our  patent 
ofhce  in  Washington  refuses  to  consider 
devices  to  produce  perpetual  motion,  not 
because  that  office  would  place  an  arbi- 
trary limit  on  the  possibilities  of  mechan- 
ical invention,  but  because  effect  without 
cause,  power  without  compensation,  is  im- 
possible. 

We  shall  be  justified  in  the  conclusion 
that  the  principle  of  balance  presides  over 
[    29    ] 


BALANCE 

the  processes  of  Nature  in  the  small  as 
well  as  in  the  large  —  alike  in  atoms,  sat- 
ellites and  suns  —  and  that  every  trans- 
formation of  matter  and  force,  great  or 
insignificant,  includes  the  return  of  exact 
equivalents  and  compensation. 


[    30    ] 


V 

Man's  Part  in  Nature  —  Progress  by  Antagonism  — 
Nature's  Process  is  by  Test  and  Trial,  by  unfold- 
ing, changing,  ripping  up,  undoing  and  redoing  — 
Error  dies  in  the  Struggle. 

APART  from  the  world  of  physics, 
and  yet  inextricably  entangled 
with  the  physical,  is  a  realm  in 
which  exist  thought,  hope,  imagination, 
reason,  comedy,  pathos,  tragedy,  friend- 
ship and  love,  revenge  and  hate,  honor 
and  humiliation,  right  and  wrong,  pleasure 
and  laughter,  pain,  agony  and  despair;  a 
world  which  is  included  in  Nature,  the 
same  as  mineral  and  vegetable,  matter  and 
motion,  atom  and  sun.  The  thought,  hopes, 
ideals  and  fate  of  man  belong  as  truly  to 
Nature  as  wood,  muck,  coal  or  stone. 

The    conscious     part    of     man  —  that 
which  sees,  feels  and  comprehends  —  is 
of  higher   interest   and    importance   than 
[     31     ]     , 


BALANCE 

anything  purely  physical.  Newton  com- 
prehended gravitation,  but  gravitation 
could  not  comprehend  Newton.  Priestley 
discovered  oxygen,  but  oxygen  never  dis- 
covered Priestley.  The  astronomers  have 
seen  far-off  stars,  but  no  star  will  ever 
see  an  astronomer.  Our  great  laws  and 
principles,  our  immensities,  our  planets 
and  suns  —  they  are  senseless,  they  know 
nothing,  see  nothing,  feel  nothing.  But 
man,  frail,  weak  and  defective  though  he 
be,  can  see,  feel  and  comprehend. 

So  far  as  man  is  physical,  we  know 
that  he  is  subject  to  the  same  laws  that 
control  other  manifestations  of  matter  and 
force.  But  what  of  the  conscious  part 
of  man  ?  Is  that  subject  to  the  same  laws 
of  action  and  reaction,  cause  and  effect, 
equivalence  and  compensation,  that  rule 
in  the  physical  world?  Is  there  one  law 
for  physical  interaction,  and  a  different 
law,  or  no  law,  for  intellectual  and  moral 
interactions?  Does  compensation  exist  for 
[    32    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

matter  and  force  onty,  or  does  it  exist  also 
for  the  human  soul  ? 

The  polarities  of  Nature,  and  the  inter- 
actions between  them,  are  quite  as  pro- 
nounced in  human  life  as  in  physics;  in- 
deed, the  polarities  extend  beyond  the 
physical  and  human  into  the  abstract,  as 
in  odd  and  even  numbers.  The  polarities 
are  sometimes  antagonistic,  sometimes  re- 
ciprocal, and  always,  I  believe,  mutually 
corrective. 

"  An  inevitable  dualism  bisects  Nature," 
says  Emerson,  "so  that  each  thing  is  a 
half  and  suggests  another  thing  to  make 
it  whole  —  as,  spirit,  matter;  man,  woman; 
odd,  even;  subjective,  objective;  in,  out; 
upper,  under;  motion,  rest;  yea,  nay.  .  .  . 
The  same  dualism  underlies  the  nature 
and  condition  of  man." 

Plato  perceived  the  same  law  of  polar- 
ity in   "  the   generation  of   contraries,  of 
death  out  of  life,  and  life  out  of  death,  of 
recomposition  and  decomposition." 
[     33     ] 


BALANCE 

Man  faces  on  all  sides  the  polarities  of 
Nature,  some  of  which  —  such  as  wet  and 
dry,  hot  and  cold,  work  and  rest,  pleasure 
and  pain  —  were  as  apparent  in  savagery 
as  they  are  in  civilization.  With  increas- 
ing knowledge  man  perceives  more  and 
more  of  these  dualities  and  invents  new 
words  to  express  them.  Roget  gives,  in 
his  "  Thesaurus,"  more  than  twelve  thou- 
sand words  of  opposite  meaning.  "  There 
exist  comparatively  few  words  of  a  gen- 
eral character  to  which  no  correlative  term, 
either  of  negation  or  of  opposition,  can  be 
assigned,"  says  Roget. 

Hegel  held  the  theory  of  "  progress  by 
antagonism  "  —  "  that  forms  which  are  op- 
posed are  really  complementary  or  neces- 
sary to  each  other,  and  their  conflict  is 
limited  by  the  unity  which  they  express 
and  which  ultimately  must  subordinate 
them  all  to  itself." 

Sometimes  we  recognize  that  a  stranger 
is  a  teacher  or  a  minister  by  the  tone  of 
[     34     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

his  voice.  The  peculiarity  in  the  voice  is 
partly,  but  not  wholly,  oratorical.  It  is  the 
voice  of  the  orator  who  expects  no  answer, 
who  anticipates  that  no  one  will  "talk 
back  "  on  equal  terms  —  the  voice  undis- 
ciplined by  antagonism.  We  may  observe 
also  the  absence  of  the  discipline  of  an- 
tagonism in  the  voices  and  manners  of 
children,  and  of  those  who  have  too  much 
or  too  little  self  assertion  —  in  the  mean 
and  the  haughty,  the  servile  and  the  arro- 
gant. The  countryman  adjusts  himself 
with  some  trouble  to  the  ways  of  the  city, 
and  the  city  man  to  the  ways  of  the  farm 
or  forest,  because  these  changes  bring  new 
antagonisms.  We  meet  new  antagonisms 
with  every  change  from  infancy  to  the 
grave  —  in  learning  to  walk  and  to  care  for 
ourselves;  in  going  first  to  school;  with 
each  new  study;  in  the  cares,  duties  and 
responsibilities  which  come  with  maturity; 
in  heat  and  cold,  dust  and  rain;  in  conta- 
gions; in  the  numberless  enemies  which 
[    35     ] 


BALANCE 

lurk  in  the  water  we  drink  and  in  the  aif 
we  breathe;  in  old  age,  "that  malady 
which  no  physician  has  ever  cured." 

Life  is  filled  with  issues  —  moral,  intel- 
lectual, political,  social,  philosophical, 
commercial,  physical  —  some  being  grave 
and  others  trivial.  The  mind  of  a  man 
is  a  field  of  battle  in  which  contending 
ideas,  forces  and  interests  meet  and  clash, 
each  one  seeking  for  the  weak  spots  in  the 
other.  A  thought  or  proposal  arouses  an- 
tagonistic thoughts  and  considerations, 
and  a  school  of  thought  begets  antagonis- 
tic schools.  Monotheism  rises  up  against 
polytheism,  heterodoxy  against  orthodoxy, 
rationalism  against  superstition,  epicu- 
reanism against  stoicism,  realism  against 
idealism,  monism  against  dualism,  will 
against  fatalism,  tolerance  against  intoler- 
ance, equality  against  privilege,  radicalism 
against  conservatism,  trades  unions  against 
employers,  farmers  against  middlemen, 
middlemen  against  combinations,  combina- 
[    36    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

tions  against  competition.  Our  people  are 
in  perpetual  antagonism  concerning  na- 
tional, state  or  local  policies.  In  these  con- 
flicts, as  in  all  other  conflicts,  the  stronger 
is  victorious.  Balance  forbids  a  victory 
of  weakness  over  strength.  By  strength  I 
mean  power,  whether  it  be  mental  or  phys- 
ical, honest  or  base.  A  man  is  stronger 
than  a  horse  through  intelligence;  one 
man  rules  a  thousand  or  a  million  men 
through  superior  will,  courage,  wisdom  or 
devotion,  or  by  taking  advantage  of  their 
ignorance,  fanaticism  or  superstition.  In 
our  political  contests  the  victory  goes  with 
the  majority,  which  may  be  in  accordance 
with  right,  or  may  be  moved  by  misunder- 
standing or  passion.  The  victory  of  wrong 
will  in  time  produce  its  reaction,  which 
will  be  favorable  to  right.  "When  bad 
becomes  bad  enough,  then  right  returns." 
"Nothing  is  settled  until  it  is  settled 
right." 

The  history  of  civilization  is  the  history 
[    37    ] 


BALANCE 


of  the  settlement  of  issues  in  accordance 
with  their  merits,  of  numberless  victories 
of  tolerance  over  intolerance,  of  reason 
over  ignorance,  of  right  over  wrong.  Nor 
is  it  true,  as  is  sometimes  assumed,  that 
there  has  been  no  philosophical  progress. 
The  old  contest  between  stoic  and  epicu- 
rean —  in  which  some  of  the  greatest 
minds  of  antiquity  participated  for  five  or 
six  centuries  — has  been  definitely  settled. 
The  verdict  is  expressed  in  the  meaning 
which  the  two  words  have  acquired  in  our 
language.  The  word  stoic  is  applied  to  the 
strong,  emotionless,  self  denying,  uncon- 
querable; epicurean  to  the  fastidious,  lux- 
urious, self  indulgent,  weak.  And  modern 
thought  recognizes  that,  while  the  two 
words  represent  opposite  tendencies  in  hu- 
man nature  —  one  of  which  is  in  the  main 
noble  and  the  other  in  the  main  ignoble 
—  neither  has  the  substance  upon  which 
to  build  a  philosophy  of  life.  Nor  is  it 
likely  that  a  philosophy  of  life  can  be  built 
[    38    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

upon  one  of  two  antagonistic  ideas  or  prin- 
ciples. 

The  meaning  taken  on  by  our  words 
"cynic"  and  "sophist" also  records  the  final 
verdict  concerning  the  merits  of  two  an- 
cient schools  of  philosophy.  Antisthenes, 
Diogenes  and  Menippus,  Protagoras,  Gor- 
gias  and  Hippias  —  all  important  figures 
in  their  time  —  were  cynics  or  sophists, 
but  common  sense  has  disposed  of  their 
errors.  Experience  indicates  that  the 
theories  which  belittle  human  nature,  and 
becloud  the  issues  between  right  and 
wrong,  will  ultimately  become  obnoxious 
—  that  the  very  terms  in  which  they  are 
expressed  will  grow  into  words  of  ill 
meaning. 

The  failure  to  settle  intellectual  conflicts 
is  not  due  so  much  to  the  misunderstand- 
ing of  principles  as  to  the  misunderstanding 
of  facts.  No  one  doubts  that  rationalism  is 
right  and  superstition  wrong,  but  men  dis- 
agree concerning  what  is  rational  and  what 
[     39    ] 


BALANCE 

is  superstitious.  Wrong  is  not  defended 
as  wrong,  but  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
right.  The  struggle  of  thought  is  to  dis- 
tinguish right  from  wrong. 

In  many  issues  there  is  truth  on  both 
sides,  and  a  settlement  is  delayed  by  the 
difficulty  in  determining  the  true  bal- 
ance. Sometimes  the  truth  on  one  side  is 
perfectly  balanced  by  the  truth  on  the 
other  side,  and  it  turns  out  that  there  is 
no  issue,  as  in  the  old  conflict  between 
inductive  and  deductive  reasoning.  We 
now  know  that  each  process  is  sound 
when  correctly  used,  and  that  both  pro- 
cesses are  essential  in  reasoning.  There 
are  no  particulars  that  do  not  harmonize 
with  a  generalization,  and  there  is  no  gen- 
eralization that  does  not  agree  with  its 
underlying  facts. 

Life  is  a  struggle.    Wars  end,  but  the 

war   of    the    race  —  the    antagonism    of 

thought,  the  strife  between  men,  between 

man  and  the  forces  external  to  him,  within 

[    40    ]    . 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

the  soul  of  the  individual  —  ends  not  save 
it  be  with  extinction. 

Error  gains  many  a  temporary  triumph, 
but  the  final  victory  is  with  truth.  There 
is  substance  in  truth  that  in  the  last  bal- 
ance outweighs  error. 

Nature's  process  is  by  test  and  trial,  by 
unfolding,  changing,  ripping  up,  undoing, 
redoing.  By  contrast  and  conflict  she  tries 
sincerity  and  treachery,  honor  and  dis- 
honor, fitness  and  unfitness,  courage  and 
cowardice,  truth  and  error.  The  conflict 
of  ideas  —  between  social  and  political 
systems,  and  between  creeds  and  philoso- 
phies —  is  as  rude  as  the  conflict  between 
the  sea  and  land.  Error  dies  in  the  struggle. 

The  fact,  however,  that  the  state  of 
Nature  is  dualistic  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  state 
of  conflict  or  alternation,  should  not  be 
accepted  as  carrying  the  conclusion  that 
Nature  is  dualistic  in  a  fundamental  sense. 

The  polarities  of  Nature  would,  if  con- 
sidered alone,  represent  Nature  as  a  state 
[    41     ] 


BALANCE 


of  confusion  and  anarchy.  Since,  how- 
ever, order  reigns  in  the  midst  of  the  con- 
fusion, we  must  accept  the  alternations 
and  conflicts  of  Nature  as  being  compen- 
satory, and  not  as  anarchic;  as  being  un- 
der the  control  of  law  which,  in  its  last 
analysis,  is  single  —  monistic,  not  dualistic 
—  and  master  of  all  other  forces,  even  of 
gravitation.  Water,  impelled  by  gravita- 
tion, falls  to  the  earth,  runs  through  the 
rivulets,  brooks  and  rivers  to  the  sea. 
But  it  will  ascend  again  to  the  clouds, 
again  refresh  the  land,  again  return  to  the 
clouds,  continuing  alternately  to  yield  to 
and  then  to  elude  the  gravitation  of  the 
earth.  "  What  we  call  gravitation  and  fancy 
ultimate  is  one  fork  of  a  mightier  stream 
for  which  we  have  yet  no  name,"  says 
Emerson.  I  venture  to  suggest  that  the 
"  mightier  stream  "  is  named  Balance. 


[    42    ] 


VI 

Action  and  Reaction  in  Human  Affairs  —  From 
Paganism  to  Christianity,  to  Asceticism,  to  the 
Crusades,  to  Exploration  and  Commerce  —  Minor 
Interactions  —  Reaction  from  Words  and  Tones, 
Speeches  and  Thoughts. 

ERROR  and  evil  are  located  in  defi- 
ciency or  excess.  Even  excess  in 
virtue  is  evil,  an  excess  of  humility 
being  abjectness;  of  courage,  rashness;  of 
prudence,  cowardice;  of  patience,  indif- 
ference; of  economy,  parsimony;  of  gen- 
erosity, waste;  of  deference,  obsequious- 
ness. And  so  also  an  excess  of  learning  is 
pedantry;  of  ease,  indolence;  of  comfort, 
self  indulgence ;  of  zeal,  fanaticism.  Right 
and  justice  are  found  in  moderation,  in  the 
golden  mean  —  in  the  true  balance  —  be- 
tween overdoing  and  underdoing,  going  too 
fast  and  too  slow. 

Philosophical  history  deals  mainly  with 
[     43     ] 


BALANCE 


the  record  of  excess,  and  the  reactions 
from  excess,  in  human  affairs.  Observe 
how  Lecky  traces  the  culmination  of  the 
brutaHty  and  cruelty  of  Rome  to  the  glad- 
iatorial games,  in  which  the  spectacle  of 
men  fighting  to  the  death  in  the  arena  — 
where  it  is  said  that  more  than  one  hun- 
dred thousand  perished  —  delighted  vast 
audiences,  including  the  women  of  the 
first  city  in  the  civilized  world.  It  was  a 
monk,  Telemachus,  who  finally  rushed 
between  the  combatants,  and  "  his  blood 
was  the  last  that  stained  the  arena."  The 
immediate  reaction  from  cruelty  is  repug- 
nance, aversion,  detestation.  Disgust  for 
pagan  savagery  opened  the  way  for  Chris- 
tianity, the  religion  of  kindness,  humility, 
peace  and  fraternity  —  the  exact  opposite 
of  the  pride,  arrogance  and  ferocity  of  pagan 
Rome.  The  Christians  praised  peace,  con- 
demned war,  abolished  slavery,  founded 
the  first  hospitals,  and  sought  to  alleviate 
human  sorrow  and  suffering  with  zeal 
[    44    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

which  is  without  parallel.  One  extreme 
follows  another  in  human  affairs,  like  the 
swing  of  a  pendulum.  The  reaction  from 
excess  is  excess  in  an  opposite  direction. 
Excess  in  moral  reformations  takes  the 
form  often  of  fanaticism.  Christian  fanati- 
cism developed  in  time  a  monstrous  form 
of  asceticism,  glorified  the  hermit  life,  beg- 
gary, humiliation,  flagellation,  self  torture, 
the  neglect  of  cleanliness  and  the  laws  of 
self  preservation,  the  breaking  of  family 
ties,  and  other  forms  of  senseless  sacri- 
fice. Pagan  excess  led  to  the  sacrifice  of 
others  for  sport;  Christian  excess  to  the 
sacrifice  of  self  to  gain  the  favor  of  superhu- 
man powers.  The  hero  of  the  pagans  was 
Caesar,  who  had  risen  to  fame  on  the  corpses 
of  1,100,000  men.  The  hero  of  the  age  of 
asceticism  was  St.  Simeon  Stylites,  who 
bound  himself  with  ropes  to  putrefy  his 
flesh ;  who,  it  is  said,  stood  on  one  leg  for 
a  year  and  sat  on  a  pillar  for  thirty  years 
bending  in  ceaseless  prayer.  And  what 
[    45     ] 


BALANCE 


should  we  expect  as  the  reaction  from  as- 
ceticism? Again  the  opposite  —  the  age  of 
chivalry  and  the  wars  of  the  Crusades.  The 
ascetics  had  condemned  war,  good  clothes 
and  the  love  of  women.  The  knights  of 
chivalry  rode  with  love  tokens  on  their 
breasts,  in  brilliant  apparel,  to  rescue  the 
tomb  of  Christ  from  the  Moslem.  In  the 
wars  of  the  Crusades  2,000,000  Christians 
perished. 

Through  the  Crusades  the  peoples  of 
Europe  became  better  acquainted  with 
one  another,  and  the  use  of  ships  was 
greatly  increased.  Consequently  the  reac- 
tion from  the  age  of  the  Crusades  was  the 
age  of  commerce,  and  out  of  commerce 
grew  exploration,  the  discovery  of  Amer- 
ica, the  mapping  of  the  globe.  Aversion  to 
the  intolerance  of  the  Middle  Ages  pro- 
duced the  tolerance  of  later  times.  A  sim- 
ple mechanical  contrivance,  the  printing 
press,  facilitated  the  liberation  of  thought. 
The  heroes  of  the  later  centuries  are  the 
[    46    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

discoverers,  such  as  Columbus,  Newton 
and  Darwin. 

Beneath  these  great  interactions  the  his- 
torian observes  minor  interactions,  cover- 
ing shorter  periods  in  the  affairs  of  nations 
and  communities,  as  in  France  when  the 
indifference  of  the  old  regime  to  the  rights 
of  man  led  to  the  period  of  liberty,  equal- 
ity and  fraternity,  and  the  excesses  of  the 
Revolution  to  the  horrors  of  the  guillotine. 
Dickens,  in  "A  Tale  of  Two  Cities," 
says: 

"All  the  devouring  and  insatiate  monsters  im- 
agined since  imagination  could  record  itself  are  fused 
in  the  one  realization,  Guillotine.  And  yet  there  is 
not  in  France,  with  its  rich  variety  of  soil  and  climate, 
a  blade,  a  leaf,  a  root,  a  sprig,  a  peppercorn,  which 
will  grow  to  maturity  under  conditions  more  certain 
than  those  that  have  produced  this  horror.  Crush 
humanity  out  of  shape  once  more,  under  similar  ham- 
mers, and  it  will  twist  itself  into  the  same  tortured 
forms.  Sow  the  same  seed  of  rapacious  license  and 
oppression  over  again,  and  it  will  surely  yield  the 
same  fruit  according  to  its  kind. 

"  Six  tumbrils  roll  along  the  streets.  Change  these 
[     47     ] 


BALANCE 


back  again  to  what  they  were,  thou  powerful  en- 
chanter, Time,  and  they  shall  be  seen  to  be  the  car- 
riages of  absolute  monarchs,  the  equipages  of  feudal 
nobles,  the  toilettes  of  flaring  Jezebels,  the  churches 
that  are  not  my  Father's  house  but  dens  of  thieves, 
the  huts  of  millions  of  starving  peasants  1 " 

The  atrocities  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion led  to  the  rise  of  the  empire,  and  the 
excesses  of  Napoleon  to  his  destruction. 
Victor  Hugo,  in  "  Les  Miserables,"  says 
of  Bonaparte  at  Waterloo: 

"  Another  series  of  facts  was  preparing,  in  which 
Napoleon  had  no  longer  a  place :  the  ill  will  of  events 
had  been  displayed  long  previously.  It  was  time  for 
this  vast  man  to  fall ;  his  excessive  weight  in  human 
destiny  disturbed  the  balance.  This  individual  alone 
was  of  more  account  than  the  universal  group :  such 
plethoras  of  human  vitality  concentrated  in  a  single 
head  —  the  world,  mounting  to  one  man's  brain  — 
would  be  mortal  to  civilization  if  they  endured.  The 
moment  had  arrived  for  the  incorruptible  supreme 
equity  to  reflect,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  principles 
and  elements  on  which  the  regular  gravitations  of 
the  moral  order  as  of  the  material  world  depend, 
complained.  Streaming  blood,  overcrowded  grave- 
[    48     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

yards,  mothers  in  tears,  are  formidable  pleaders. 
When  the  earth  is  suffering  from  an  excessive  burden, 
there  are  mysterious  groans  from  the  shadow,  which 
the  abyss  hears.  Napoleon  had  been  denounced  in 
infinitude,  and  his  fall  was  decided.  Waterloo  is  not 
a  battle,  but  a  transformation  of  the  universe." 

Flint,  in  his  "  Philosophy  of  History," 
says: 

"  History  always  participates  in  some  measure  of 
philosophy ;  for  events  are  always  connected  accord- 
ing to  some  real  or  ideal  principle,  either  of  efficient 
or  final  causation.  .  .  .  The  more  the  mind  of  the 
historian  is  awake  and  active,  the  more,  of  'course, 
it  is  impelled  to  go  in  search  of  the  connection  be- 
tween causes  and  effects,  between  occurrences  and 
tendencies." 

The  best  chart  of  industrial  conditions  in 
past  years  in  the  United  States  is  the  chart 
of  immigration  —  the  coming  of  foreigners 
being  in  proportion  to  the  opportunities 
for  labor.  The  first  great  wave  of  immi- 
gration was  consequent  upon  the  period  of 
prosperity  which  began  in  1845,  and  which 
was  stimulated  later  by  the  gold  discov- 
[    49     ] 


BALANCE 


eries  of  California  and  the  beginning  of 
railroad  construction.  The  tide  of  immi- 
gration declined  with  the  panic  of  1857 
and  through  the  civil  war;  it  rose  after  the 
war,  declined  with  the  panic  of  1873,  rose 
by  leaps  and  bounds  with  the  prosperity 
which  began  in  1879,  declined  with  the 
business  depression  of  1883-86,  rose  again, 
declined  with  the  panic  of  1893,  ^"^  ^^^^ 
to  the  highest  point  on  record  in  1903  as 
the  result  of  the  preceding  prosperity. 

We.  recognize  the  consequences  of  busi- 
ness prosperity  in  other  and  numerous 
forms  —  in  contentment,  comfort,  satisfac- 
tion with  the  party  in  power,  improved 
wages,  increasing  luxury  and  happiness; 
while  the  results  of  declining  trade  are 
business  failures,  reduced  wages,  precari- 
ous employment,  discontent  with  social 
and  political  conditions,  want,  despair, 
suicide. 

The  influence  of  the  law  of  action  and 
reaction  can  be  traced  more  clearly  in 
[    50    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

those  everyday  human  affairs  which  come 
under  our  individual  observation  than  in 
the  greater  movements  of  mankind  which 
are  often  imperfectly  recorded.  We  act, 
and  are  acted  upon.  The  people  we  meet 
make  an  impression  on  us;  the  impres- 
sion may  be  for  the  moment  or  it  may 
last  through  life.  Bloom,  fragrance,  grace, 
harmony,  beauty,  majesty,  affect  us  agree- 
ably; deformity,  imbecility,  distress,  cru- 
elty, affect  us  unpleasantly.  The  plea  of 
the  unfortunate,  the  thought  of  our  visitor, 
the  opinion  in  the  newspaper,  the  issues 
of  the  time,  impress  us  in  accordance  with 
our  moods  or  natures.  Certain  words, 
tones,  sights,  awaken  echoes  within  us  of 
old  happiness  or  pain. 

There  are  words  and  tones  which  pro- 
duce beautiful  reactions  —  the  lullabies  of 
the  mother,  the  endearments  of  the  lover, 
the  voice  of  sympathy,  the  enchantment 
of  music,  the  messages  of  the  poets,  the 
trumpet  calls  to  honor  and  duty.  And 
[     51     ] 


BALANCE 

there  are  words  which  produce  misun- 
derstanding, confusion,  aversion,  anger  — 
the  words  of  whining,  complaining,  fault- 
finding ;  of  envy,  jealousy,  slander ;  of 
malice,  intolerance,  brutality. 

The  response  to  the  public  speaker  is 
reciprocal  to  his  power.  If  he  be  dull,  the 
hearers  are  wearied;  if  he  be  convincing, 
courageous,  forceful,  the  audience  will 
kindle,  and  he  may  rouse  them  to  laugh- 
ter or  tears,  to  indignation  or  fury,  to 
generosity  or  sacrifice.  He  may  change 
the  opinions  and  convictions  of  some  and 
the  course  of  the  lives  of  others;  he  may 
even  save  a  city  from  slaughter  or  make 
a  state.  If  his  thought  be  really  great,  it 
may  live  through  many  ages,  stirring  gen- 
eration after  generation.  The  reaction  of 
moral  effort  may  be  prolonged;  it  may 
even  gain  force  with  time,  indicating  its 
connection  with  some  stupendous  primal 
energy.  The  echo  of  a  great  physical  con- 
vulsion dies  quickly,  but  the  echo  of  the 
[    52    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

words  of  Confucius  and  Buddha,  of  Plato, 
Seneca  and  Christ,  still  lives.  The  voice 
of  Socrates  before  his  judges  kindles  men 
whose  ancestors  were  untamed  savages 
when  Socrates  spoke.  Buildings  decay, 
monuments  fall,  rivers  run  dry,  races  de- 
cline, but  a  great  thought  suffers  from  no 
impairment  or  decrepitude ;  it  has  the  gift 
of  immortal  youth  and  strength. 


[    53    ] 


VII 

The  Law  of  Consequences  —  The  Good  or  Evil  in 
Things  is  discovered  by  Observation  of  Conse- 
quences —  Morals  are  determined  by  the  Con- 
sequences of  Human  Actions. 

A  REACTION  is  the  consequence 
of  an  action,  an  effect  is  the  con- 
sequence of  a  cause,  a  result  is 
the  consequence  of  an  antecedent.  It  is 
evident  that  the  words  reaction^  ^ff^^^tf 
result  and  consequence  express  different 
manifestations  of  one  law,  usually  called 
the  Law  of  Causation,  though  it  would 
be,  I  believe,  more  correctly  named  the 
Law  of  Consequences. 

We  shall  understand  more  clearly  the 
interactions  in  human  affairs  when  we 
recognize  that  the  meaning  of  the  words 
reaction,  effect  and  result  is  included  in 
the  word  consequence.  We  may  doubt  the 
importance  of  reaction  in  our  affairs,  but 
[    54    ]    . 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

we  shall  not  doubt  the  importance  of  con- 
sequences. 

We  are  compelled  to  give  considera- 
tion to  consequences  in  the  most  trivial 
affairs.  One  has  consequences  in  view 
when  he  strikes  a  match,  sets  a  pot  to 
boil,  plants  a  seed,  pulls  a  weed,  sharpens 
a  pencil,  mends  a  fence.  Shall  I  take  an 
umbrella?  I  balance  the  danger  of  rain 
against  the  annoyance  of  the  umbrella,  and 
decide  accordingly.  Shall  I  change  my 
coat?  take  another  cup  of  coffee?  walk 
or  ride?  Each  question  will  be  decided 
in  accordance  with  my  estimate  of  the 
balance  of  results.  In  considering  pos- 
sible advantages  or  disadvantages,  gains 
or  losses,  we  are  balancing  consequences, 
endeavoring  to  anticipate  and  weigh  the 
results  of  our  actions. 

Regret  is  usually  a  reminder  of  a  neglect 
or  misjudgment  of  consequences,  while 
repentance  and  reformation  indicate  a  wak- 
ing up  concerning  consequences.  Our  in- 
[     55     ] 


BALANCE 


terest,  curiosity,  anxieties,  fears,  hopes 
and  ambitions  are  concentrated  upon  con- 
sequences. We  seek  advice  when  we  are 
doubtful  about  consequences.  Precepts 
and  examples  elucidate  consequences.  We 
work  and  rest,  eat  and  drink,  scheme  and 
plan,  spend  and  save,  for  consequences. 
We  indulge  or  sacrifice  ourselves  for  con- 
sequences. Caesar  expended  a  million  lives 
for  earthly  glory;  St  Simeon  Stylites 
scourged  himself  for  eternal  gain.  Our 
actions,  so  far  as  they  are  controlled  by 
reason,  are  determined  by  our  judgment 
of  consequences. 

"What?  Does  the  tramp,  the  drunk- 
ard, the  thief,  consider  consequences  ?  " 

The  tramp  roves  because  he  prefers  the 
freedom  and  pleasures  of  his  life  to  the  re- 
sults of  other  ways.  The  drunkard  drinks 
because  the  near  pleasure  outbalances  in 
his  mind  the  more  remote  pain.  The  thief 
steals  because  he  values  the  quick  and 
easy  gain  more  than  he  fears  detection. 
♦  .  [    56    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

Each  man  judges  consequences  by  his 
own  lights,  which  are  distorted  often  by 
greed,  animalism,  ignorance. 

The  lesson  of  consequences  which  the 
individual  often  learns  slowly  and  imper- 
fectly, the  sound  business  organizations 
acquire  quickly  and  enforce  by  discipline. 
The  salesmen  in  a  successful  store  are 
characterized  by  tidiness,  promptness  and 
a  desire  to  please;  the  employees  of  the 
important  railroads  are  not  even  permitted 
to  answer  insult  with  insult.  The  indus- 
try that  is  intelligently  managed  will  avoid 
misrepresentation  and  deception,  knowing 
that  a  reputation  for  truth  and  fairness  is 
vital  to  continuous  success.  The  shrewd- 
est maxims  of  trade  are  built  upon  the 
observation  of  consequences. 

That  mind  is  the  strongest  which  has 
the  clearest  judgment  of  consequences. 
The  fools  are  those  who  know  little  about 
consequences.  The  child  must  be  guarded 
because  it  is  ignorant  of  consequences. 
[     57     ] 


BALANCE 

What  we  know  of  narcotics,  stimulants, 
antidotes,  hygiene,  surgery,  chemistry,  ag- 
riculture, mechanics,  commerce,  culture, 
we  know  through  the  observation  of  con- 
sequences. The  best  razor,  plough,  sani- 
tary system,  plan  of  social  betterment, 
is  that  which  produces  the  best  results. 
Knowledge,  learning  and  experience  deal 
wholly  with  cause  and  consequence.  The 
science  of  astronomy  seeks  to  compre- 
hend the  heavenly  bodies  and  their  influ- 
ences upon  each  other.  The  science  of 
chemistry  explains  the  consequences  of 
chemical  action.  The  science  of  political 
economy  aims  to  distinguish  and  mark  the 
good  and  evil  results  of  different  systems 
of  land  tenure,  taxation,  trade  and  finance. 
The  science  of  government  would  deter- 
mine what  political  system  is  best  for  a 
people.  The  science  of  war  seeks  to  know 
what  arms,  equipments,  forces  and  ma- 
noeuvres will  inflict  the  greatest  injury 
upon  the  enemy  with  a  minimum  of  ex- 
[    58    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

penditure.  The  science  of  language  deals 
with  the  utility  of  words,  pronunciation  and 
forms  of  expression.  And  so  on  through 
the  whole  of  human  experience,  knowl- 
edge seeks  to  distinguish  that  which  has 
the  best  results  from  that  which  has  infe- 
rior or  evil  results. 

Our  ideas  of  right  and  wrong  are  due 
to  the  nature  of  the  responses  to  human 
actions.  How  do  we  know  that  truth  is 
better  than  falsehood?  Because  we  are 
better  pleased  with  ourselves  when  we 
speak  truthfully  than  when  we  lie;  be- 
cause truth  is  essential  to  understanding; 
because  we  despise  lying  in  others;  be- 
cause lying  leads  to  confusion,  uncertainty, 
enmity,  and  to  other  evil  consequences. 
And  so  also  we  have  formed  a  judg- 
ment of  loyalty  and  treachery,  cruelty  and 
kindness,  virtue  and  vice,  by  their  conse- 
quences. 

Our  laws,  customs  and  commandments 
would  not  prove  to  us  that  truth  is  better 
[     59    ] 


BALANCE 

than  lying  if  our  own  experience  did  not 
confirm  it.  The  Decalogue  is  effective 
only  so  far  as  Nature  corroborates  it. 

Our  common  conceptions  of  morality 
are  the  results  of  the  observation  of  human 
actions  and  their  consequences  —  of  cause 
and  effect,  of  action  and  reaction.  We 
know  that  certain  actions  are  right  and 
others  wrong,  as  we  know  that  bread  is 
good  and  straw  bad  for  food;  that  light 
clothing  is  more  useful  in  summer  than 
in  winter;  that  cleanliness  is  better  than 
filthiness ;  that  the  way  to  walk  is  forward, 
not  backward;  that  mirth  is  pleasanter 
than  grief. 

As  the  value  of  a  machine  or  imple- 
ment is  shown  in  its  working,  and  the 
value  of  a  tree  by  its  fruit,  so  the  merit  or 
demerit  of  food,  drink,  medicine,  acts  and 
thoughts  is  determined  by  their  results, 
reactions  or  effects  —  by  their  conse- 
quences. 

[    60    ] 


VIII 

Equivalence  is  the  Test  of  Truth  —  Our  Standards 
are  Instruments  of  Equivalence  —  The  Balancing 
of  Alternatives  —  Reasoning  is  an  Exploration  of 
the  Undetermined,  a  Search  for  Antecedents  and 
Consequences. 

IN  mathematics,  our  one  exact  science, 
equivalence  is  the  test  of  truth.  Con- 
sider the  unalterable  nature  of  the 
truth  expressed  in  the  simplest  equation: 
one  plus  one  equals  two.  Nothing  can 
change  this  result.  That  which  is  so  im- 
pregnable is  the  principle  of  equivalence. 
One  added  to  one  equals  two,  and  can  equal 
nothing  else. 

Equivalence  is  the  test  of  truth  also  in 
the  physical  sciences,  so  far  as  our  knowl- 
edge is  exact,  as  in  chemical  combinations. 
Our  standards  —  the  cent  and  dollar; 
pint  and  gallon;  ounce,  pound  and  ton; 
inch,  foot  and  mile  —  are  instruments 
[    6i     ] 


BALANCE 

of  equivalence.  We  measure  accurately 
only  by  equivalents.  In  the  absence  of  a 
standard,  we  fall  back  on  resemblance, 
analogy,  comparison,  or  some  other  sub- 
stitute for  an  equivalent. 

The  chief  substitute,  used  alike  by  the 
humblest  and  highest  minds,  is  the  balanc- 
ing of  alternatives  —  the  measuring  of  one 
thing  by  its  opposite.  The  rules  of  logic  are 
unknown  to  the  mass  of  mankind,  but  no 
one  possessed  of  intelligence  is  unfamiliar 
with  the  process  of  balancing  alternatives. 
Even  the  animals  use  it  when  they  choose 
between  two  paths,  or  two  actions,  as  be- 
tween fight  and  flight.  Men  use  it  in  every 
dilemma,  great  or  small,  from  the  choice 
between  the  simplest  actions,  to  the  issue 
of  life  or  death.  Is  the  thing  under  con- 
sideration good  or  bad?  Shall  I  vote  for 
A  or  B?  Shall  I  act  now  or  postpone.'* 
Shall  I  take  a  risk  ?  Shall  I  stop  or  go  on  ? 
Shall  I  change  my  course  ?  Shall  I  do  this 
or  that?  In  these  and  other  dilemmas,  we 
[    62    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

balance  the  consequences  of  one  alterna- 
tive against  the  other,  and  choose  what  ap- 
pears to  be  the  better.  Facing  death  in  two 
forms,  we  choose  the  better  way.  Balanc- 
ing alternatives,  one  will  jump  from  a  high 
window  to  the  pavement  to  escape  fire. 

The  moral  dilemmas  presented  to  us  are 
not  always  limited  to  a  clear  choice  be- 
tween right  and  wrong.  It  is  wrong  to 
steal,  but  should  one  starve,  or  permit  those 
dependent  on  him  to  starve,  rather  than 
steal  ?  It  is  right  to  tell  the  truth,  but  should 
one  tell  the  truth  when  it  involves  the  be- 
trayal of  his  comrades,  his  country,  his  fam- 
ily ?  It  is  wrong  to  deceive,  but  would  not 
one  be  justified  in  deceiving  the  enemy 
who  would  destroy  him?  It  is  wrong  to 
kill,  but  may  not  one  kill  in  self  defense  ? 

The  problem  of  morals  presses  con- 
stantly upon  the  human  race,  presenting 
to  each  individual  in  turn  new  trials, 
difficulties  and  repugnant  choices.  Each 
must,  to  a  large  degree,  choose  his  own 
[    63    ] 


BALANCE 

way,  fight  his  own  battle.  These  are  the 
facts  which  confuse  our  ethical  counselors. 
It  is  not  possible  to  act  always  in  exact 
harmony  with  our  moral  code.  If  one  is 
so  placed  that  he  can  save  his  mother  from 
starvation  only  by  stealing,  he  will  violate 
the  fifth  commandment  if  he  permits  her 
to  starve,  and  he  will  violate  the  eighth 
commandment  if  he  chooses  to  steal.  The 
choice  between  two  evils  often  comes  to 
the  individual  suddenly  and  imperatively. 
He  must  act  at  once,  rendering  a  deci- 
sion for  which  there  is  often  no  precedent 
known  to  him.  The  Decalogue  which  he 
can  recite,  the  philosophical  analysis  of  the 
evolution  of  ethics,  do  not  aid  him. 

He  who  is  thus  tried,  and  who  desires 
to  do  right,  will  choose  the  course  which 
is  least  evil.  He  will  balance  the  alterna- 
tives, exactly  as  does  the  one  who  jumps 
to  the  pavement  rather  than  remain  in  the 
burning  building. 

Other  alternatives  crowd  upon  us.  Na- 
[    64    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

ture  presents  to  us  almost  continuously 
the  choice  between  near  pleasure  and  re- 
mote good.  Shall  I  rest  now  and  enjoy 
myself,  or  shall  I  work,  postponing  my  en- 
joyment? Shall  I  give  the  years  of  my 
youth  to  study  or  to  play?  Shall  I  accept 
present  privation  that  I  may  in  time  enjoy 
security?  Shall  I  consider  my  own  inter- 
ests wholly,  or  shall  I  make  a  sacrifice  for 
others  ?  Shall  I  stay  at  home  in  comfort, 
or  shall  I  risk  my  life  for  my  country? 
Shall  I  disown  my  faith,  or  shall  I  accept 
death  by  torture?  Numberless  are  the 
choices  between  the  near  and  the  remote 
good  which  men  must  make.  The  lower 
men  show  little  appreciation  of  the  remote 
good,  save  as  they  are  inspired  by  the 
instinct  of  self  preservation.  The  higher 
men  are  distinguished  by  their  high  valua- 
tion of  the  remote  good  —  by  provision 
for  the  future,  by  attention  to  health,  by 
interest  in  culture,  by  sound  investments, 
by  building  business,  houses  and  charac- 
[    65    ] 


BALANCE 

ter   substantially,  by  a  high  estimate  of 
honor  and  duty. 

Reasoning  is  an  exploration  of  the  unde- 
termined— an  elucidation  of  the  unknown 
through  the  known  or  the  discoverable. 
There  is  no  difficulty  in  measuring  with 
exact  standards  to  measure  by,  and  with 
something  tangible  to  measure — for  ex- 
ample, in  determining  the  number  of  cubic 
feet  in  a  room,  or  the  power  of  an  engine. 
Reasoning,  which  is  easy  so  far  as  it  deals 
with  exact  equivalents,  becomes  difficult 
when  applied  to  things  the  equivalents  of 
which  are  unknown.  The  mind  instinc- 
tively seeks  for  the  unknown  equivalents, 
and  finds  them  in  antecedents  or  conse- 
quences. Chemical  experimentation  is  a 
search  for  consequences;  bacteriological 
investigation  is  a  search  for  antecedents. 
The  search  in  both  cases  is  for  equivalents 
by  which  we  may  determine  the  nature  and 
meaning  of  the  thing  tried,  or  its  relations 
to  other  things. 

[    66    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

The  syllogism  in  logic  is  a  form  by 
which  one  may  advance  from  antecedents 
to  a  consequent.  The  essence  of  a  syllo- 
gism is  this :  that  a  premise  includes  all  of 
its  consequences.  If  a  premise  be  true,  its 
consequences  will  be  true;  if  it  be  false, 
its  consequences  will  be  false.  Conclu- 
sions, corollaries,  deductions,  judgments, 
inferences,  discoveries  and  estimates  are 
consequences  —  each  following  from  an 
antecedent  or  antecedents. 

The  failure  to  consider,  or  to  estimate 
correctly,  the  consequences  of  a  position 
is  fatal  in  reasoning.  This  is  illustrated 
in  the  case  of  a  number  of  schools  of 
thought  holding  conclusions  concerning 
the  most  important  questions  of  life  which 
are  in  contradiction  to  human  experience 
or  to  reason  —  for  example,  idealism  and 
fatalism. 

That  form  of  idealism  which  denies  the 
existence  of  matter,  has  been  supported 
by  many  famous  minds,  in  neglect  of  its 
[    (>!    ] 


BALANCE 


consequences,  for  we  know  that  no  idealist 
could  act  as  if  matter  had  no  existence  — 
could  live  and  move  about  in  contempt  of 
mud,  stone  walls,  mountains,  rivers,  seas, 
snow,  ice,  fire,  food,  poison,  gunpowder, 
clothing,  beds. 

Fatalism,  known  under  different  names, 
as  foreordination,  predestination,  necessity, 
determinism  —  thie  theory,  in  its  logical 
form,  that  man  is  an  automaton,  an  instru- 
ment moved  and  played  upon  by  external 
influences  or  powers  —  has  been  defended 
by  many  eminent  theologians,  philosophers 
and  other  thinkers,  including  some  distin- 
guished modern  scientists.  Observe,  in 
the  face  of  the  intellectual  prominence 
of  the  fatalists,  how  completely  the  con- 
sequences of  fatalism  refute  that  theory. 
One  convinces  himself  that  fatalism  is 
true,  that  he  and  all  other  men  are  au- 
tomatons. He  must  convince  himself 
through  reason.  But  an  automaton  can- 
not reason.  He  convinces  himself  through 
[     68     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

reason  that  he  is  an  automaton  without 
reason  ! 

The  method  of  reasoning  justified  by  ex- 
perience, used  by  men  in  contact  with  the 
problems  and  difficulties  of  life,  whether 
the  problems  and  difficulties  be  the  most 
simple  or  the  most  complex,  is  the  method 
of  common  sense  —  the  testing  of  ante- 
cedents by  consequents,  and  of  conse- 
quents by  antecedents. 

We  judge  the  value  of  a  machine,  a 
field,  a  cow,  a  pig,  by  what  it  will  pro- 
duce; a  picture,  a  scene,  a  play,  a  spec^ 
tacle,  a  poem,  a  song,  a  book,  a  thought, 
by  what  it  gives  back  to  us;  a  creed,  an 
opinion,  a  plan,  a  policy,  a  system,  a  phi- 
losophy, a  deduction,  a  conclusion,  by 
what  we  believe  its  consequences  are  or 
will  be. 

We  estimate  the  value  of  a  nation,  a 

race,  by  its  history,  its  antecedent  repord. 

The  calculations  of  future  events  by  the 

astronomers  are  based  on  antecedent  ex- 

[    69    ] 


BALANCE 

perience.  We  must  judge  what  will  be  by 
what  has  been.  We  search  alike  for  good 
seeds  and  evil  germs  that  we  may  propa- 
gate the  one,  and  destroy  the  other. 

To  comprehend  the  unknown  seed,  we 
plant  it  and  observe  its  consequences.  To 
comprehend  an  unexplained  crime,  we 
search  for  its  antecedents.  The  process 
of  reasoning,  even  of  the  most  abstract 
reasoning,  is  the  same.  An  advance  in 
knowledge,  from  the  humblest  step  to 
the  highest  scientific  achievement,  comes 
from  the  investigation  of  antecedents  or 
consequences. 

As  a  physical  interaction  includes  cause 
and  effect,  and  perfect  equivalence  be- 
tween them,  so  does  the  mental  interaction 
which  we  call  reasoning  include  antecedent 
and  consequence,  and  perfect  equivalence 
between  them.  We  are  unable  to  think  of 
antecedents  and  consequences  as  being 
other  than  exact  —  of  peaches  as  growing 
on  apple  trees,  or  of  acorns  that  produce 
[    70    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

potatoes.  The  measure  of  truth  and  false- 
hood will  be  found  in  their  equivalents  — 
in  their  antecedents  and  consequences. 


[     71     ] 


IX 

Compensation  in  Human  Affairs  —  Problems  of  Busi- 
ness  are  Problems  of  Compensation  —  Right  is 
accomplished  by  rendering  Equivalents  —  Duty 
is  a  Debt,  literally  a  Due  —  The  Golden  Rule  is  a 
Law  of  Equivalent  Exchange. 

IN  primitive  times  trade  was  by  bar- 
ter —  a  fish  for  a  rabbit,  a  shell  for  a 
cocoanut,  or  service  for  service  —  a 
direct  exchange  of  articles  or  labor.  Mod- 
ern commerce  is  still  correctly  designated 
as  "trade"  or  " exchange,"  though  methods 
are  improved.  Money,  drafts,  credit  and 
transportation  are  instrumentalities  of  ex- 
change, of  balance.  I  exchange  my  labor 
for  money,  which  is  good  in  exchange  for 
whatever  may  be  in  the  market.  A  debt 
is  a  deferred  balance.  A  promissory  note 
is  an  agreement  to  settle  a  balance.  A 
bank  check  is  a  draft  upon  a  balance  in 
bank  to  close  or  reduce  a  balance  else- 
[     72     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

where.  Systems  of  accounting  are  agencies 
of  balance.  The  correctness  of  bookkeep- 
ing is  tested  by  a  balance. 

Interest  is  the  penalty  for  a  postponed 
payment,  for  a  delayed  balance.  The  busi- 
ness done  on  a  cash  basis  is  balanced 
continuously;  the  business  done  on  credit 
is  out  of  balance,  involving  risk.  The  de- 
lay of  compensation  is  dangerous.  Fail- 
ures, bankruptcies  and  business  panics 
are  due  to  debt,  the  neglect  of  compensa- 
tion. 

Life  consists  almost  wholly  of  buying, 
selling,  paying.  There  are  no  gifts,  noth- 
ing that  does  not  call  for  an  equivalent. 
If  we  cannot  pay  for  gifts  in  kind,  we  must 
pay  in  gratitude  or  service,  or  we  shall 
rank  as  moral  bankrupts. 

If  I  would  have  a  good  situation,  I  must 
pay  for  it  not  only  in  labor,  but  in  prompt- 
ness, intelligence,  faithfulness  and  good 
manners.  If  I  would  have  good  service,  I 
must  pay  not  only  in  money,  but  in  con- 
[     73     ] 


BALANCE 

sideration,  recognition,  appreciation,  fair- 
ness. I  can  hold  no  one  to  me  if  I  mis- 
use him. 

All  things  are  to  be  had  for  the  buying. 
Would  you  have  friends?  Then  pay  the 
price.  The  price  of  friendship  is  to  be 
worthy  of  friendship.  The  price  of  glory 
is  to  do  something  glorious.  The  price  of 
shame  is  to  do  something  shameful. 

Friendship,  glory,  honor,  admiration, 
courage,  infamy,  contempt,  hatred,  are  all 
in  tlie  market-place  for  sale  at  a  price. 
We  are  buying  and  selling  these  things 
constantly  as  we  will.  Even  beauty  is  for 
sale.  Plain  women  can  gain  beauty  by  cul- 
tivating grace,  animation,  pleasant  speech, 
intelligence,  helpfulness,  courage  or  good 
will.  Beauty  is  not  in  the  features  alone; 
it  is  in  the  soul  also. 

Good  will  buys  good  will,  friendliness 
buys  friendship,  confidence  begets  confi- 
dence, service  rewards  service  ;  and  hate 
pays  for  hate,  suspicion  for  suspicion, 
[     74    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

treachery  for  treachery,  contempt  for 
ingratitude,  slovenliness,  laziness  and 
lying. 

We  plant  a  shrub,  a  rosebush,  an  orchard, 
with  the  expectation  that  they  will  pa}''  us 
back.  We  build  roads,  mend  harness  and 
patch  the  roof  with  the  same  expectation. 
We  will  trust  even  these  unconscious 
things  to  pay  their  debts. 

Some  of  our  investments  are  good,  and 
some  are  bad.  The  good  qualities  we 
acquire  —  moderation,  industry,  courtesy, 
order,  patience,  candor  —  are  sound  in- 
vestments. Our  evil  institutions  and  habits 
are  bad  investments,  involving  us  in  losses. 
We  become  debtors  to  them,  and  they  are 
exacting  creditors,  forcing  payment  in  full 
in  money  and  labor,  and  sometimes  in 
blood,  agony,  tears,  humiliation  or  shame. 

We  recently  had  in  this  country  the  in- 
stitution of  chattel  slavery,  which  we  had 
cultivated  for  two  hundred  years.  Prepar- 
atory to  going  out  of  business,  this  insti- 
[     75     I 


BALANCE 


tution  called  on  us  for  final  settlement. 
Our  indebtedness,  which  proved  to  be 
large  —  amounting  to  more  than  half  a 
million  lives  and  over  six  thousand  mil- 
lion dollars  —  was  paid  in  full.  It  seems 
strange  that  our  institution  of  slavery, 
with  no  standing  among  the  great  powers 
of  the  earth,  should  have  been  able  to  col- 
lect such  an  indemnity  in  blood,  treasure 
and  pain  from  an  enlightened  people,  tak- 
ing a  drop  of  blood  from  the  dominant 
race  "  for  every  drop  drawn  by  the  lash." 

We  are  administering  compensation 
continually  in  our  praise  and  blame  of  our 
fellow  men  —  in  applause  to  a  poet  or  dis- 
coverer, in  condemnation  of  the  greedy  and 
rapacious,  in  aversion  to  injustice,  in  love 
to  our  benefactors. 

"  Each  day,"  as  Emerson  says,  "  is  a  day 
of  judgment."  We  are  judged  continually, 
and  usually  correctly,  by  our  associates  and 
friends.  And  we  are  constantly  paying 
penalties  to  or  receiving  rewards  from 
[    76    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

our  judges  —  penalties  in  the  indifference, 
dislike,  contempt  and  detestation  of  our 
fellows;  rewards  in  their  appreciation, 
confidence,  good  will  and  love. 

The  vulgar  receive  no  respect,  the  heart- 
less no  sympathy,  the  rapacious  no  affec- 
tion. It  is  better  to  be  a  dog  that  has  earned 
a  little  love  than  Caesar  in  triumph,  his 
enemies  on  his  chariot  wheels. 

Compensation  is  in  the  frost  on  the  win- 
dow pane,  and  in  the  sunset  of  gold  and 
crimson  and  purple,  which  reward  the  ar- 
tistic sense  in  the  minds  even  of  the  for- 
lorn and  poor;  in  the  hope  in  the  hearts 
of  men  which  makes  life  endurable ;  in  the 
first  cry  of  the  infant  which  rewards  the 
mother's  agony. 

Right  is  accomplished  by  rendering 
equivalents.  Duty  is  a  debt,  literally  a  due, 
which  we  owe  to  ourselves  or  to  others. 
The  Golden  Rule  is  a  perfect  law  of  equiv- 
alent exchange,  and  Kant's  "  categorical 
imperative  "  —  "  Act  according  to  that 
[    11    ] 


BALANCE 


maxim  only  which  you  can  wish  at  the 
same  time  to  become  the  universal  law  " 
—  is  also  an  exact  law  of  reciprocity. 

"  The  real  first  truth  of  morality,"  says 
Victor  Cousin,  "  is  justice.  It  is  justice, 
therefore,  and  not  duty,  that  strictly  de- 
serves the  name  of  a  principle."  "  Univer- 
sal justice,"  says  Aristotle,  "includes  all 
virtue."  "Justice  is  the  greatest  good," 
says  Plato. 

Justice  is  the  foundation  of  retribution, 
vindication,  reparation,  obligation,  reci- 
procity, accountability,  duty.  Justice  is 
compensation. 

Everything  in  Nature,  conscious  and  un- 
conscious, animate  and  inanimate,  is  busily 
engaged  in  paying  its  debts.  By  what  sys- 
tem is  this  perfect  accounting  made?  We 
see  no  books,  observe  no  management,  and 
yet  the  numberless  settlements  are  made 
with  as  much  exactness  as  if  each  one  were 
superintended  by  a  group  of  experts,  com- 
bining more  of  knowledge  and  justice  than 
[    78    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

are  possessed  by  all  of  the  mathemati- 
cians, scientists,  thinkers,  philosophers  and 
judges  in  the  world.  We  cannot  explain 
this  accounting  on  the  theory  of  chance 
or  accident;  we  must  conclude  that  it  is 
the  consequence  of  a  supreme  power  or 
principle  of  order,  right  and  justice  which 
regulates  the  affairs  of  the  world. 


A    79    1 


Order  is  Regulation;  Balance  is  Regulator.  Right 
is  Correctness;  Balance  is  Corrector.  Justice  is 
Compensation;  Balance  is  Compensator — Balance 
is  Single  and  Supreme,  without  a  Mate  or  Equal. 

BALANCE  is  a  word  in  which  are 
concentrated,    I    hold,   the   higher 
meanings  of  the  words  order,  right 
and  justice. 

The  high  and  more  general  meanings  of 
the  word  order  —  such  as  sequence,  regu- 
larity of  succession  and  method,  right  ar- 
rangement— fit  well  into  the  word  balance. 
In  other  words,  balance  may  include  the 
higher  meanings  of  order,  but  order  does 
not  include  all  of  balance.  We  shall  not 
find  the  fundamental  explanations  of  the 
system  of  Nature  in  order.  Effect,  it  is 
true,  follows  cause,  and  reaction  follows 
action,  in  an  orderly  manner.  This  is  a 
process,  a  general  way  of  Nature.    Such  a 

[     8°     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

statement,  however,  gives  out  little  light. 
But  when  we  say  that  effect  balances 
cause,  that  reaction  balances  action,  then 
we  make  a  distinct  advance  toward  unity 
and  light. 

Right  is  a  word  of  broad  and  noble 
meaning,  but  it  also  does  not  fit  com- 
pletely into  the  fundamental  explanations 
of  the  system  of  Nature,  or  apply  as  per- 
fectly as  does  the  word  balance  to  every 
interaction. 

The  figure  illustrating  justice  is  a  goddess 
blindfolded,  holding  the  scales  of  balance 
in  her  hands.  Justice  is  balance  in  human 
affairs.  Balance  is  wider  than  justice,  since 
it  includes  justice  and  more  than  justice. 
There  is  no  justice  in  the  moon,  where  there 
is  no  conscious  life,  but  balance  is  there. 

Balance  includes  order,  right  and  jus- 
tice, but  none  of  the  latter  can  include 
completely  the  former.  Balance  is  an 
active,  governing  principle,  supreme,  cen- 
tral, automatic.  Order  is  regulation;  bal- 
[     8i     ] 


BALANCE 


ance  is  regulator.  Right  is  correctness; 
balance  is  corrector.  Justice  is  compen- 
sation; balance  is  compensator. 

As  we  advance  in  knowledge  we  per- 
ceive more  and  more  of  duality  in  the 
processes  of  Nature.  Doubtless  we  shall 
know  in  time  that  all  processes,  save  the 
supreme  process,  are  double.  We  know 
now  that  the  law  of  causation  is  misnamed; 
it  is  really  the  law  of  cause  and  effect. 
And  so  also  the  law  of  evolution  is  actually 
the  law  of  evolution  and  devolution.  That 
the  fit  survive  is  only  a  half  truth,  the 
other  half  being  this — that  the  unfit  perish. 
That  matter  and  force  are  indestructible 
is  also  a  half  of  the  complete  truth  that 
matter  and  force  are  indestructible  and 
uncreatable.  The  law  of  consequences  is 
really  the  law  of  antecedents  and  conse- 
quences, though  I  shall  continue,  for  the 
sake  of  brevity,  to  designate  it  as  single. 

As  Roget  has  shown,  nearly  all  of  the 
important  words  in  our  language  are  bal- 
[    82    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

anced  by  words  of  opposite  meaning. 
Even  honor  is  balanced  by  dishonor,  vir- 
tue by  vice,  right  by  wrong.  But  where 
shall  we  find  the  obverse  of  balance,  its 
other  half,  mate  or  contrary,  the  force 
which  matches  balance  on  equal  terms? 
I  know  of  no  such  energy  or  principle.  It 
has  no  name;  no  word  in  our  language 
expresses  such  meaning.  We  say  that  re- 
action balances  action,  attraction  balances 
repulsion,  order  balances  disorder,  and  so 
on,  but  what  balances  Balance?  These 
words  in  which  I  attempt  to  consider  the 
balancing  of  balance  become  ridiculous, 
indicating  the  absurdity  of  the  thought 
that  balance  is  itself  subject  to  balance. 
Balance  is  single  and  supreme,  without  a 
mate  or  equal. 


[    83    ] 


XI 

Natural  Justice  —  Compensation  in  Human  Affairs 
involves  a  Cycle  of  Beginning,  Development  and 
Conclusion,  as  Seed  Time,  Growth  and  Harvest  — 
Tyranny  is  an  Antidote  for  Mean  Spiritedness,  and 
Courage  is  the  Antidote  for  Tyranny  —  Through 
such  Rude  Alternations  do  we  move  forward. 

"  ¥    \UT  what  of  the  failures  of  balance, 

11  of  the  awful  accidents  and  terrible 

convulsions  of   Nature  in  which 

balance  seems  to  be  absent,  or  at  least 

tardy  or  inefficient?  " 

The  convulsions  of  Nature  are  not 
violations  of  balance ;  they  are  the  phe- 
nomena connected  with  Nature's  great 
interactions.  Lightning  is  the  shock  ac- 
companying the  establishing  of  equipoise 
between  two  clouds,  or  between  a  cloud 
and  the  earth.  An  earthquake  is  the 
equalization  of  an  internal  pressure  upon 
the  crust  of  the  earth.  And  so  cyclones, 
[    84    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

volcanic  eruptions,  floods,  droughts,  epi- 
demics and  other  disturbances  are  the 
consequences  of  the  antecedents  which 
produced  them. 

"  Do  you  admit,  then,  that  things  are 
not  always  in  balance,  and  that  man  can 
defy  balance  ?  " 

Man  cannot  defy  balance.  His  acts  must 
produce  equivalent  consequences.  The  use 
of  rotten  harness,  imperfect  boilers,  defect- 
ive flues,  bad  plumbing,  weak  buildings 
and  faulty  machinery  will  invite  disaster. 
Whenever  the  internal  pressure  overbal- 
ances the  strength  of  the  boiler,  we  have 
what  we  call  an  accident,  though  it  is 
not  really  an  accident,  being  the  result 
of  ignorance  or  of  a  miscalculation  of 
forces. 

We  invite  evil  consequences  in  overeat- 
ing and  overdrinking,  in  overworking  and 
underworking,  in  neglecting  sanitary  pre- 
cautions, in  worrying  and  straining  beyond 
our  strength,  thereby  receiving  many  a 
[    85    ] 


BALANCE 

hard  rap  and  sometimes  a  deathblow.  We 
live  in  the  kingdom  of  equivalence  and 
compensation.  Its  laws  are  very  strict, 
and  we  cannot  evade  them.  If  we  violate 
them,  we  must  pay  the  penalty. 

To  say  that  compensation  is  defeated 
because  it  requires  time  for  completion  is 
as  unreasonable  as  if  one  should  say  that  a 
journey  is  endless  because  its  conclusion 
is  not  reached  in  an  instant,  or  that  the 
seed  planted  this  morning  is  a  failure  be- 
cause it  does  not  produce  an  ear  of  corn 
this  afternoon.  We  do  not  comprehend 
the  Rocky  Mountains  through  the  first 
glimpse  of  one  of  its  peaks,  nor  is  the 
whole  process  of  evolution  to  be  found  in 
one  of  Darwin's  lines.  And  compensation 
also  is  revealed  only  by  the  whole  of  it 
—  in  its  completeness  —  and  not  in  one 
glimpse  or  line. 

The  processes  of  compensation  in  human 
affairs  involve  usually  a  cycle  of  begin- 
ning, development  and  conclusion  —  as 
[     86     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

seed  time,  growth  and  harvest  —  for  com- 
pletion. A  headache,  separated  from  the 
indulgence  that  preceded  it,  is  apparently 
wrong;  connected  with  its  cause,  it  is 
right.  To  judge  a  thing,  we  must  know 
its  antecedents  and  consequences.  We 
cannot  determine  the  exact  status  of  a 
wrong,  or  of  what  appears  to  be  a  wrong, 
unless  we  know  that  antecedents  do  not 
justify  it,  or  that  consequences  will  not 
rectify  it. 

At  the  end  of  all  our  reasoning  con- 
cerning the  fundamental  questions  of  life, 
we  must  choose  between  two  alternatives 
—  either  (i)  all  things  are  in  the  process 
of  being  righted,  or  (2)  the  world-order 
is  hopelessly  wrong. 

The  correction  of  excess  and  deficiency 
is  the  province  of  balance.  It  would  be 
impossible  to  make  a  list  of  the  influences 
and  forces  which  antagonize  excess  or  de- 
ficiency, for  we  do  not  know,  and  doubt- 
less never  will  know,  all  of  them,  as  they 
[    87    ] 


BALANCE 

are  included  in  the  most  subtle  and  minute 
phenomena  of  action  and  reaction,  of  cause 
and  effect  Human  law,  for  illustration,  is 
designed  to  prevent  excess  or  deficiency 

—  not  only  statute  law  and  common  law, 
but  laws  of  decorum,  ceremony,  courtesy, 
etiquette,  custom,  usage,  manners,  trade. 
These  laws  are  more  or  less  defective, 
themselves  subject  to  excess  or  deficiency 

—  as  laws  of  despotism,  privilege,  monop- 
oly, fashion  —  and  sadly  require  the  regu- 
lation of  balance.  To  one  who  suffers  from 
defective  laws,  the  force  that  corrects  them 
seems  to  be  far  off  or  even  non-existent. 
We  should  remember,  however,  that  bal- 
ance works  sometimes  secretly,  as  in  the 
imperceptible  rhythm  said  to  exist  in  all 
motion,  and  sometimes  silently  through 
centuries,  as  in  the  transformation  of  sun- 
shine into  coal. 

The  world  has  doubtless  suffered  more 
from  tyranny  in  its  many  forms  than  from 
any  other  perversion  of  order  in  human 
[     88     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

affairs.  Yet  we  may  perceive  much  of 
balance  in  the  origin,  development  and 
conclusion  even  of  tyranny.  The  tyrant 
rules  because  he  is  the  stronger.  Strength 
will  rule  over  weakness.  No  protest  or 
complaint,  no  weeping  or  wailing,  will 
change  that  fact.  Tyranny  exists  by  the 
consent  of  the  oppressed.  Those  are  en- 
slaved who  are  willing  to  be  owned,  who 
are  too  ignorant  or  cowardly  to  resist,  or 
who  consent  to  temporize.  We  enslaved 
the  negro  because  he  lacked  spirit,  but  we 
failed  to  enslave  the  Indian.  The  Indian 
accepted  death,  and  declined  slavery. 
There  were  negroes,  too,  who  declined 
slavery,  and  found  freedom  in  the  north 
or  in  death. 

There  is  something  in  tyranny  that 
rouses  the  spirit  of  men,  even  of  dull  and 
cowardly  men.  It  may  be  that  we  owe 
more  to  our  tyrants  than  to  our  benevo- 
lent autocracies,  which  have  soothed  and 
lulled  us  into  indifference  and  inglorious 

r  89  ] 


BALANCE 

content.  Tyranny  is  an  antidote  for  mean 
spiritedness,  and  courage  is  the  antidote 
for  tyranny.  Through  these  rude  alterna- 
tions do  we  move  forward.  We  would 
value  freedom  little  if  we  knew  nothing  of 
oppression. 

As  for  the  tyrant,  he  thinks  of  poison 
when  he  eats  and  drinks;  he  sees  danger 
in  the  sullen  faces  of  his  slaves.  He  lives 
in  dread  of  assassination,  and  often  dies 
by  it.  He  sees  danger  even  where  there  is 
no  danger.  He  cuts  a  sorry  figure  in  his- 
tory. His  life  is  uneasy  and  his  memory 
is  detested.  There  are  no  happy  tyrants. 
The  great  tyrants  earn  immortal  infamy; 
the  small  ones  secure  the  hatred  of  those 
who  know  them.  The  account,  as  we  see  it, 
balances  rudely ;  doubtless  it  would  bal- 
ance to  a  hair  if  we  could  trace  all  of  the 
remote  antecedents  and  consequences  of 
tyranny.  Doubtless  also,  if  we  could  trace 
the  antecedents  and  consequences  of  all 
other  evils,  we  should  know  that  there  is 
[    90    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

no  trouble  which  time  will  not  heal,  no 
wrong  which  is  not  in  the  process  of  being 
righted. 

The  universe  is  under  the  reign  of  law, 
which  is  everywhere  —  in  things  mean  and 
minute  as  well  as  in  things  noble  and  great. 
So  far  as  we  have  come  into  an  under- 
standing of  these  laws,  we  have  found 
none  defective. 

No  sound  philosophy  can  concede  that 
a  law  of  Nature  can  be  out  of  balance  or 
in  any  way  less  than  true  and  perfect. 
When  we  advance  a  theory  to  the  point 
where  it  would  prove  that  a  law  of  Nature 
is  out  of  balance  and  defective,  we  should 
know  that  the  conclusion  is  wrong;  that 
it  is  our  reasoning,  and  not  the  law,  that  is 
out  of  balance  and  defective. 


[    91     ] 


XII 

Justice  is  Incomplete  in  the  Present  Existence  —  Our 
Life  here  is  as  a  Broken  Part  of  a  Broader  Life  — 
If  Death  ends  All,  then  the  Mass  of  Mankind  must 
live,  toil,  suffer  and  die  under  a  Condition  of  Hope- 
less Injustice. 

WE  must  admit,  however,  that 
justice  is  incomplete,  in  the  life 
of  the  individual  in  this  world 
alone  —  in  that  phase  of  existence  which 
is  bounded  by  birth  as  a  beginning  and  by 
death  as  an  end  —  if  it  be  really  true  that 
death  ends  all,  that  the  processes  of  com- 
pensation are  interrupted  by  death.  All 
men  are  endowed  at  birth  with  unequal 
strength,  intelligence  and  moral  qualities. 
One,  born  of  superior  antecedents,  is 
reared  under  benign  influences,  develops 
into  noble  manhood,  lives  under  favorable 
environments  to  a  good  old  age,  and  dies 
tranquilly.  Another,  a  woman,  born  of 
C    92    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

low  antecedents,  is  sold  by  a  degraded 
mother  into  prostitution,  lives  a  short  and 
wretched  life,  and  dies  miserably.  One, 
inheriting  a  mean  intellect,  lives  on  a 
level  a  little  above  the  brute ;  another, 
the  idiot,  is  more  helpless  than  the  brute. 
To  one  pair  are  born  fine  children,  who 
grow  up  to  helpful  maturity;  to  another 
pair  comes  a  drunkard,  a  degenerate,  an 
imbecile  or  a  criminal.  One,  who  con- 
forms to  the  opinions  or  institutions  of  his 
time,  perhaps  ignorantly  or  dishonestly, 
lives  peacefully  to  old  age ;  another,  more 
intelligent  or  sincere,  suffers  martyrdom 
for  his  devotion  to  right  and  duty. 

A  few  live  long  and  pleasant  lives,  into 
which  enters  no  imusual  trouble,  pain  or 
misfortune.  The  lives  of  the  many  are 
short  and  broken,  or  rendered  burdensome 
by  slavish  toil ;  "  by  griefs  that  gnaw  deep, 
by  woes  that  are  hard  to  bear."  Story 
pictures  these,  in  his  "  lo  Victis,"  as  — 

[    93    ] 


BALANCE 

..."  the  low  and  the  humble,  the  weary  and  broken 

in  heart, 
Who  strove  and  who  failed,  acting  bravely  a  silent 

and  desperate  part ; 
Whose  youth  bore  no  flower  on  its  branches,  whose 

hopes  burned  in  ashes  away, 
From  whose  hands  slipped  the  prize  they  had  grasped 

at,  who  stood  at  the  dying  of  day, 
With  the  work  of  their  life  all  around  them,  unpitied, 

unheeded,  alone, 
With  death  swooping  down  o'er  their  failure,  and  all 

but  their  faith  overthrown." 

Nor  are  the  good  always  happy,  nor  the 
vicious  wretched,  in  proportion  to  their  de- 
serts in  this  life.  To  the  contrary,  the  good 
are  often  wretched  and  the  vicious  happy. 

The  life  here  is  as  an  intermediate  act  in 
a  play  or  chapter  in  a  novel,  in  which  the 
plot  has  neither  opening  nor  conclusion, 
and  in  which  the  action,  separated  from  the 
preceding  and  succeeding  parts,  is  appar- 
ently without  purpose,  sense  or  justice  — 
in  which  wrong  and  villainy  may  be  tri- 
umphant and  integrity  and  virtue  trampled 
in  the  dust. 

[    94    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

Perhaps  our  passion  for  fiction  and  the 
drama  is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  them  we 
find  that  completeness  and  justice  which  we 
rarely  see  in  real  life.  In  them  the  good, 
after  many  difficulties  and  troubles,  are  tri- 
umphant, and  the  evil  are  finally  undone. 

Our  fondness  for  biography  and  history 
—  which  abound  also  in  rewards,  retribu- 
tions and  other  equities  —  can  be  explained 
on  similar  grounds.  We  discover  that  com- 
pleteness and  justice  come  to  the  individ- 
ual slowly,  but  surely,  in  a  historic  sense; 
that  those  made  great  by  accident  are  in 
time  forgotten;  that  the  tyrannical  and  the 
cruel  are  detested;  that  Columbus  left  a 
better  legacy  than  Caisar;  that  Newton  is 
more  honored  than  any  English  king;  that 
Burns,  the  rustic  poet,  is  better  loved  than 
Bonaparte,  the  conqueror.  And  we  ob- 
serve that  Lincoln  —  whose  youth  was  for- 
lorn, whose  life  was  full  of  care,  who  was 
murdered  in  the  hour  of  his  triumph  — 
still  lives  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen. 
[     95     ] 


BALANCE 


And  we  learn  to  believe  that  the  books 
of  Nature  must  balance;  that  Time  glori- 
fies the  just,  humiliates  the  arrogant,  levels 
all  inequalities,  revenges  all  outrages,  rights 
all  wrongs. 

Thus  we  find  in  both  fact  and  fiction, 
and  in  the  hunger  for  justice  in  our  own 
hearts,  some  warrant  for  our  old  faith  that 
the  present  life  is  only  a  broken  part  of  a 
much  broader  life  which  will  be  complete, 
and  in  which  all  things  will  be  made  right 
and  even. 

If  this  life  were  broken  into  still  shorter 
fragments,  it  would  appear  to  be  still  more 
unjust.  If,  for  illustration,  each  life  con- 
sisted of  one  day  only,  then  the  lives  of 
some  would  fall  upon  fair,  mild  or  bril- 
liant days,  and  others  upon  wet,  cold  or 
hot  days;  some  upon  the  long  days  of 
June,  and  others  upon  the  short  days  of 
December;  and  some  upon  days  into  which 
no  sunlight  would  enter,  and  these  would 
doubt  even  the  existence  of  the  sun. 
[    96    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

But  our  life  here  consists  of  many  days, 
and  we  know  that  the  good  days  outnum- 
ber the  bad  ones ;  that  the  seasons  return 
with  precision,  and  that  there  are  but  slight 
variations  in  the  annual  rainfall  and  tem- 
perature of  any  given  district. 

A  week  or  even  a  month  of  bad  days 
does  not  discourage  us,  for  we  know  that 
in  the  round  of  a  year  we  shall  have  about 
so  much  of  rain  and  drought,  sunshine  and 
fog,  heat  and  cold.  So  far  as  the  weather 
is  concerned.  Nature's  average  restores 
approximate  equilibrium  in  the  cycle  of 
a  year,  and  complete  balance  in  a  term  of 
years. 

The  broader  the  basis  of  reckoning,  the 
more  perfect  is  the  equivalence  established 
by  statistics  and  experience.  While  we 
have  in  our  present  life  manifestations  of 
balance  in  the  alternations  of  the  weather, 
in  the  recurrence  of  the  seasons  and  in 
many  other  phenomena,  and  while  a  tend- 
ency toward  justice  is  evident  in  all  hu- 
.  [    91     ] 


BALANCE 


man  affairs,  it  is  clear  that  the  life  here  is 
neither  long  enough  nor  broad  enough  to 
establish  complete  compensation. 

A  full  consideration  of  the  subject  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that,  if  death  ends  all, 
then  the  mass  of  mankind  must  live,  toil, 
suffer  and  die  under  a  condition  of  hope- 
less injustice  —  and  hence  that  the  only 
basis  for  the  belief  that  justice  will  be 
completely  established  in  human  affairs  is 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul. 

This  conclusion  sheds  much  light  upon 
the  universality,  persistence  and  rational 
meaning  of  religion. 


[    98    ] 


XIII 

The  Essential  Meaning  of  Religion  is  found  in  the 
Agreements,  and  not  in  the  Disagreements,  among 
Believers  —  There  are  Three  Fundamental  Reli- 
gious Beliefs :  (i)  That  the  Soul  is  Accountable 
for  its  Actions ;  (2)  That  the  Soul  survives  the 
Death  of  the  Body  j  (3)  In  a  Supreme  Power  that 
rights  Things, 

RELIGION  is  the  oldest,  the  most 
universal  and  the  most  permanent 
of  the  institutions  of  men.  We 
have  no  historic  record  of  a  people  who 
were  destitute  of  every  form  and  manifes- 
tation of  religion.  It  is  nurtured  by  civili- 
zation; it  existed  among  the  earlier  and 
lower  men. 

Tylor  ranks  perhaps  as  the  foremost  in- 
vestigator of  primitive  beliefs.  In  consid- 
ering the  theory  that  there  must  be  tribes 
so  low  as  to  be  destitute  of  religious  faith, 
he  says: 

[     99     ] 


BALANCE 

'*  Though  the  theoretical  niche  is  ready  and  con- 
venient, the  actual  statue  to  fill  it  is  not  forthcoming. 
The  case  is  in  some  degree  similar  to  that  of  the 
tribes  asserted  to  exist  without  language  or  without 
the  use  of  fire ;  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things  seems 
to  forbid  the  possibility  of  such  existence,  but  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  tribes  are  not  found.  Thus  the 
assertion  that  rude  non-religious  tribes  have  been 
known  in  actual  existence,  though  in  theory  possible, 
and  perhaps  in  fact  true,  does  not  at  present  rest  on 
that  sufficient  proof  which,  for  an  exceptional  state 
of  things,  we  are  entitled  to  demand."  —  Primitive 
Culture,  i.  418. 

Concerning  the  harmonies  in  religious 
beliefs,  Tylor  also  says: 

"  No  religion  of  mankind  lies  in  utter  isolation 
from  the  rest,  and  the  thoughts  and  principles  of 
modern  Christianity  are  attached  to  intellectual  clues 
which  run  back  through  far  pre-Christian  ages  to  the 
very  origin  of  human  civilization,  perhaps  even  of 
human  existence."  —  Primitive  Culture,  i.  421. 

Spencer  says: 

"  Of  religion,  then,  we  must  always  remember  that 
amid  its  many  errors  and  corruptions  it  has  asserted 
and  diffused  a  supreme  verity.   From  the  first,  the 

[     '°o     ] 


THE   FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

recognition  of  this  supreme  verity,  in  however  imper- 
fect a  manner,  has  been  its  vital  element;  and  its 
various  defects,  once  extreme  but  gradually  dimin- 
ishing, have  been  so  many  failures  to  recognize  in 
full  that  which  it  recognized  in  part.  The  truly  reli- 
gious element  of  religion  has  always  been  good ;  that 
which  has  proved  untenable  in  doctrine  and  vicious 
in  practice  has  been  its  irreligious  element ;  and  from 
this  it  has  ever  been  undergoing  purification."  —  First 
Principles,  p.  104. 

Religion  is  a  word  which  has  not  been 
clearly  defined.  It  has  one  meaning  to 
Jews,  another  to  Christians,  another  to 
Mohammedans,  another '  to  Buddhists. 
Even  the  Christians  —  being  divided  into 
many  sects  —  hold  views  more  or  less  in 
conflict  concerning  the  meaning  of  reli- 
gion. The  lexicographers  have  defined  the 
word  timidly  and  haltingly,  drawing  no 
clear  distinction  between  religion  and 
theology. 

What  is  the  actual  meaning  of  the  great 
fact  which  we  call  religion  ?  Where  shall 
we  find  the  "supreme  verity"  to  which 
[    '^^    ] 


BALANCE 

Mr.  Spencer  refers,  and  the  harmony  of 
which  Mr.  Tylor  speaks  ? 

It  would  be  useless  to  attempt  to  dis- 
cover a  ground  of  agreement  in  all  of 
the  thought  of  the  world  concerning  reli- 
gion, for  the  thinking  on  the  subject  has 
been  voluminous  and  endless,  good  and 
bad,  sane  and  insane.  Nor  should  we  ex- 
pect to  find  an  essential  harmony  in  all 
religious  organizations,  great  and  small, 
temporary  and  permanent,  powerful  and 
insignificant.  It  is  conceivable  that  a  sect 
claiming  to  be  reiligious  is  really  irre- 
ligious. 

We  should  seek  for  the  essential  meaning 
of  religion  in  the  broad  principle  or  prin- 
ciples which  have  been  accepted  by  great 
masses  of  men  in  places  and  times  wide 
apart;  in  the  permanent  manifestations  of 
religious  sentiment,  and  in  the  instinctive, 
spontaneous  and  untaught  beliefs  common 
to  primitive  men  which  survive  in  more 
highly  developed  form  among  the  enlight- 

[      I02      ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

ened.  And  we  must  seek  for  it  finally  in 
the  harmony  of  belief  in  the  great  religious 
organizations  now  in  existence;  for  they 
must  contain,  in  the  natural  order  of 
growth,  that  which  is  worthy  of  survival 
in  the  religious  faith  that  has  preceded 
them.  We  must  seek  for  the  meaning  of 
religion  in  the  agreements,  and  not  in  the 
disagreements,  among  believers. 

It  is  now  conceded  by  enlightened  the- 
ologians, as  well  as  by  philosophers,  that 
religious  institutions  and  beliefs  have  de- 
veloped through  the  universal  principle  of 
evolution.  And  it  follows  that,  as  the  oak 
is  something  more  complete  than  the 
acorn,  astronomy  than  astrology,  man  than 
the  ape,  so  we  shall  find  religious  beliefs 
to  be  more  perfectly  developed  in  enlight- 
enment than  in  savagery. 

"  For  a  principle  of  development,"  says 

Edward    Caird    (Evolution    of    Religion, 

pp.   43-45),  "necessarily  manifests  itself 

most  clearly  in  the  rnost  mature  form  of 

[    ^03    ] 


BALANCE 


that  which  develops.  ...  It  is  the  devel- 
oped organism  that  explains  the  germ 
from  which  it  grew.  .  .  .  We  must  find 
the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  first  stage 
in  the  last." 

I.   The  Belief  that  the  Soul  is  Account- 
able for  its  Actions, 

"  I  entertain  a  good  hope,"  says  Socrates, 
"  that  something  awaits  those  who  die,  and 
that,  as  was  said  long  since,  it  will  be  far 
better  for  the  good  than  the  evil." 

A  very  old  belief  —  which  grows  with 
man's  growth  and  strengthens  with  his 
enlightenment —  is  the  faith  that  he  is  ac- 
countable for  his  actions. 

Tylor,  who  doubts  that  the  doctrine  of 
compensation  was  universal  among  primi- 
tive races,  admits  that  it  existed  among 
many,  and  that  it  extended  and  developed 
with  the  growth  of  mankind.    He  says: 

"  A  comparison  of  doctrines  held  at  various  stages 
of  culture  may  justify  a  tentative  speculation  as  to 
[     »o4    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

their  actual  sequence  in  history,  favoring  the  opinion 
that  through  an  intermediate  stage  the  doctrine  of 
simple  future  existence  was  actually  developed  into 
the  doctrine  of  future  reward  and  punishment,  a 
transition  which,  for  deep  import  to  human  life,  has 
scarcely  its  rival  in  the  history  of  religion."  —  Primi- 
tive Culture,  ii.  84. 

D'Alviella  says*. 

"  The  idea  of  a  judgment  of  the  dead,  to  which  the 
theory  of  rewards  and  punishments  naturally  leads  as 
its  culmination,  appears  to  have  found  its  way  into 
the  minds  even  of  very  backward  peoples."  —  Hib- 
bert  Lectures,  p.  193. 

Tangible  evidence  of  the  belief  in  ac- 
countability by  primitive  tribes  now  extinct 
being  lacking,  many  scientific  investigators 
deny  that  it  existed. 

Yet  these  investigators  agree  that  pro- 
pitiation was  an  universal  rite  among  the 
lowest  men,  that  it  survived  the  increase 
of  culture,  and  has  existed  to  the  present 
time.  Why  did  primitive  men  propitiate 
the  spirits  of  their  dead.'*  And  why  did 
[     »o5     ] 


BALANCE 

the  later  cults  propitiate  fetiches,  idols  and 
gods  ? 

Propitiation  is  offered  through  fear  to 
powers  to  which  one  acknowledges  ac- 
countability. The  culprit  propitiates  his 
judgC)  the  slave  his  master,  the  subject 
his  ruler.  It  is  eviHent  that  the  motive 
strong  enough  and  general  enough  to  im- 
pel the  primitive  tribes  to  propitiate  the 
spirits  of  the  dead  must  have  been  based 
on  the  belief  that  man  was  accountable 
to  the  spirits,  whom  he  credited  with  ex- 
traordinary powers. 

It  appears  to  me  that  the  sense  of  ac- 
countability was  in  the  nature  of  things 
the  first  religious  sentiment  in  the  mind  of 
man;  that  it  preceded  the  belief  in  a  future 
life  and  in  superhuman  powers;  that  it 
was  based  and  still  rests  upon  cause  and 
effect,  which  are  apparent  to  the  dull,  as 
well  as  to  the  enlightened;  that  the  lower 
men  perceived  that  the  fruits  of  certiin 
acts  and  things  were  good  and  of  others 
[     »o6     ] 


THE   FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

bad,  and  that  this  perception  led  inevita- 
bly, in  the  infancy  of  thought,  to  the  recog- 
nition of  the  law  of  consequences^  which 
is  the  law  of  accountability,  of  rewards 
and  penalties. 

The  knowledge  of  primitive  man  begins 
with  cause  and  effect.  He  discovers  that 
water  quenches  thirst,  game  is  found  under 
certain  conditions,  a  cave  gives  shelter, 
friction  brings  fire,  the  sun  yields  heat 
and  light,  some  plants  are  poisonous,  frost 
withers,  lightning  kills. 

The  first  lesson  learned  by  the  infant 
is  connected  with  cause  and  effect.  The 
mother  is  the  source  of  food,  the  cause  of 
protection.  Later  the  child  learns  that 
through  effort  it  can  walk;  that  some 
things  are  hurtful  and  others  helpful; 
some  bitter,  some  sweet;  some  heavy, 
some  light.  It  discovers  that  some  actions 
are  beneficial  and  may  be  safely  repeated ; 
that   others  are    injurious   and  should  be 

avoided.    The  beneficial  it  recognizes  as 
[    107    ] 


BALANCE 

good,  the  harmful  as  evil.  That  which 
hurts,  even  if  inanimate,  the  child  w^ould 
punish;  that  which  is  pleasant  it  rewards 
at  least  with  a  smile.  The  baby  becomes 
a  judge,  and  gives  forth  verdicts.  Before 
it  can  speak  its  first  word,  it  knows  much 
instinctively  of  cause  and  effect,  of  good 
and  evil,  recognizes  the  utility  of  rewards 
and  penalties,  and  comprehends  dimly  the 
law  of  compensation. 

The  brute  also,  in  proportion  to  its  in- 
telligence, understands  cause  and  effect; 
it  recognizes  its  enemies,  comprehends  its 
own  weakness  and  strength,  declines  con- 
flict save  on  terms  favorable  to  itself,  and 
knows  the  distinction  in  numerous  cases 
between  things  harmful  and  things  bene- 
ficial. The  wisest  man  is  distinguished  in- 
tellectually from  the  lower  men,  and  from 
the  brutes,  by  his  superior  knowledge  of 
cause  and  effect  and  of  the  distinctions  be- 
tween good  and  evil. 

Man's  belief  in  his  accountability  —  that 
[    »°8    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

is,  in  cause  and  effect  —  is  fundamental.  It 
begins  with  his  first  rational  consideration 
of  his  relations  to  the  external  world  and 
to  the  order  of  Nature,  which  he  will  later 
deify.  Nature  has  two  imperative  com- 
mands which  primitive  man  hears  con- 
stantly—"  Thou  Shalt"  and  "Thou  shalt 
not."  As  his  mind  grows,  the  horizon  of 
his  accountability  extends  until  it  passes 
beyond  the  confines  of  this  life.  Believing 
in  his  own  survival  of  death,  he  anticipates 
that  in  the  after-life  it  will  be  "  far  better 
for  the  good  than  the  evil." 

It  would  be  a  reasonable  assumption 
that  the  theories  of  a  superhuman  power 
or  powers,  of  potent  spirits,  fetiches,  idols, 
of  many  gods,  and  finally  of  one  God,  grew 
out  of  man's  feeling  of  accountability.  His 
sense  of  accountability  forced  him  to  be- 
lieve that  he  was  responsible  to  some 
power  which  sets  things  right.  Man  has 
been  so  impressed  usually  by  his  accounta- 
bility for  his  sins  —  by  "  the  dread  of  some- 
[    »09    ] 


BALANCE 

thing  after  death"  —  that  he  has  sought 
means  of  escape  from  it  as  he  would  from 
wild  beasts,  from  flood  or  from  fire. 

D'Alviella  (Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  179) 
says  that  religion  from  the  first  "de- 
veloped a  spirit  of  subordination"  and 
"  favored  the  sacrifice  of  a  direct  and  im- 
mediate satisfaction  to  a  greater  but  more 
distant  and  indirect  good." 

The  theory  of  "  a  standard  of  duty  pre- 
scribed by  something  loftier  than  imme- 
diate advantage,"  as  Brinton  expresses  it, 
which  was  recognized  dimly  and  roughly 
by  the  lower  tribes,  has  been  accepted  by 
all  later  forms  of  faith. 

We  find  the  doctrine  that  the  soul  is 
accountable  for  its  actions  bedded  in 
the  foundations  of  religion,  entering  com- 
pletely into  the  life  here  and  into  the  life 
hereafter.  It  lies  at  the  base  of  all  religious 
theories  of  reward  and  retribution,  of  a 
day  of  judgment,  of  salvation  and  dam- 
nation, of  heaven  and  hell. 
[    >'o    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

2.   The  Belief  that  the  Soul  survives  the 
Death  of  the  Body. 

Tylor  claims  (Primitive  Culture,  i.  424) 
"  as  a  minimum  definition  of  religion,  the 
belief  in  spiritual  beings^'*  which  ap- 
pears (p.  425)  "among  all  low  races  with 
whom  we  have  attained  to  thoroughly  in- 
timate relations."  He  defines  "  the  belief 
in  spiritual  beings  "  (p.  427)  as  including 
in  its  full  development  "  the  belief  in  souls 
and  in  a  future  stateP 

This  belief,  he  says  (p.  426),  is  '''the 
groundwork  of  the  -philoso-phy  of  reli- 
gion, from  that  of  savages  up  to  that  of 
civilized  man;"  and  constitutes  (p.  427) 
"  an  ancient  and  world-wide  philosophy." 

Grant  Allen  says : 

"  Religion,  however,  has  one  element  within  it  still 
older,  more  fundamental,  and  more  persistent  than 
any  mere  belief  in  a  God  or  gods  —  nay,  even  than 
the  custom  of  supplicating  and  appeasing  ghosts  or 
gods  by  gifts  and  observances.  That  element  is  the 
conception  of  the  life  of  the  dead.   On  the  primitive 

E   ^"   ] 


BALANCE 


belief  in  such  a  life  all  religion  ultimately  bases  itself. 
The  belief  is  in  fact  the  earliest  thing  to  appear  in 
religion,  for  there  are  savage  tribes  who  have  nothing 
worth  calling  gods,  but  have  still  a  religion  or  cult 
of  their  dead  relatives."  —  The  Evolution  of  the  Idea 
of  God,  p.  42. 

Brinton  says: 

"  I  shall  tell  you  of  religions  so  crude  as  to  have 
no  temples  or  altars,  no  rites  or  prayers ;  but  I  can 
tell  you  of  none  that  does  not  teach  the  belief  of  the 
intercommunion  of  the  spiritual  powers  and  man." 

—  Religions  of  Primitive  Peoples,  p.  50. 

D'Alviella  says: 

"  The  discoveries  of  the  last  five-and-twenty  years, 
especially  in  the  caves  of  France  and  Belgium,  have 
established  conclusively  that  as  early  as  the  mam- 
moth age  man  practiced  funeral  rites,  believed  in  a 
future  life,  and  possessed  fetiches  and  perhaps  even 
idols."  —  Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  15. 

Huxley  says: 

"There  are  savages  without  God  in  any  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  but  there  are  none  without  ghosts." 

—  Lay  Sermons  and  Addresses,  p.  163. 

Spencer  says  that  the  conception  of  the 
soul's  survival  of  physical  death, 
[    '-^    J 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

"  along  with  the  multiplying  and  complicating  ideas 
arising  from  it,  we  find  everywhere  —  alike  in  the 
arctic  regions  and  the  tropics ;  in  the  forests  of  North 
America  and  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia;  in  the  val- 
leys of  the  Himalayas  and  in  African  jungles ;  on  the 
flanks  of  the  Andes  and  in  the  Polynesian  islands. 
It  is  exhibited  with  equal  clearness  by  races  so  re- 
mote in  type  from  one  another  that  competent  judges 
think  they  must  have  diverged  before  the  existing 
distribution  of  land  and  sea  was  established  —  among 
straight  haired,  curly  haired,  woolly  haired  races; 
among  white,  tawny,  copper  colored,  black.  And  we 
find  it  among  peoples  who  have  made  no  advances 
in  civilization  as  well  as  among  the  semi-civilized 
and  the  civilized."  —  Sociology,  ii.  689. 

Some  recognition  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life  is  found  in  the  religious  cults, 
ancient  and  modern,  of  which  we  have  ac- 
curate knowledge.  Even  the  ancient  He- 
brews, whose  faith  was  more  materialistic 
doubtless  than  any  other  that  is  known  to 
us,  believed  in  spirits  within  and  without 
men,  that  Elijah  "  went  up  by  a  whirlwind 
into  heaven,"  that  the  dead  Samuel  ap- 
peared to  Saul,  that  "  the  Lord  killeth  and 
[    "3    ] 


BALANCE 

maketh  alive:  he  bringeth  down  to  the 
grave,  and  bringeth  up,"  and  that  all  souls 
went  at  death  to  a  vague  and  shadowy 
hereafter  which  could  not  be  called  life, 
and  yet  was  not  complete  annihilation.  The 
modern  Hebrews  repudiate  the  material- 
ism of  early  Judaism.  For  more  than  six 
hundred  years  the  Jewish  church  has  ac- 
cepted the  doctrine  of  "the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  "  in  the  creed  of  Maimonides. 

In  the  same  way  the  Chinese  have  re- 
pudiated Confucius.  While  the  thought  of 
Confucius  is  materialistic,  the  Chinese  re- 
ligions are  profoundly  spiritualistic.  Not 
even  Confucius,  the  adored  and  venerated 
philosopher  of  the  Chinese,  nor  the  writers 
of  the  Old  Testament,  could  wean  their 
followers  permanently  from  the  instinctive 
belief  in  a  future  life. 

Instinctive     religion  —  that    which     is 

permanent  and  untaught  as  distinguished 

from  that  which  is  temporary,  isolated,  or 

based  on  speculation  or  authority  —  toler- 

[     'H    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

ates  no  limitation  upon  the  after-life  of 
man.  Here  and  there  some  teacher  or 
prophet  has  proclaimed  that  only  women, 
or  the  married,  or  the  great  or  the  good, 
or  even  that  no  one,  will  survive  death, 
but  such  theories  have  left  no  permanent 
impression  upon  the  religious  convic- 
tions of  mankind.  The  modern  religious 
organizations  of  substance  and  permanence 
hold  that  all  mankind  will  survive  death. 
We  may  conclude,  in  the  light  of  all  the 
facts  obtainable,  that  the  belief  in  a  future 
life  —  that  the  soul  survives  the  death  of 
the  body  —  is  a  fundamental  precept  of 
religion. 

3,   The  Belief  in  a  Su^re'tne  Power  that 
rights  Things. 

The  belief  in  superhuman  influences  and 
powers  has  been  and  continues  to  be  uni- 
versal, accepted  alike  by  the  lowest  savage 
and  the  highest  philosopher;  by  the  deist, 
pantheist  and  atheist,  as  well  as  by  the  the- 
[     ^'5     ] 


BALANCE 

ist.  Primitive  man  had  a  low  or  dull  con- 
ception of  the  overruling  power.  Some- 
times he  located  it  in  a  pebble  or  great 
rock;  in  a  hill  or  mountain;  in  the  dawn, 
sun,  moon  or  stars  ;  in  a  mummy  or  idol; 
in  his  own  ancestor;  even  in  animals,  fishes 
or  reptiles.  In  whatever  form  he  recog- 
nized it,  however,  it  was  to  him  a  power 
that  rights  things,  a  beneficence  to  which 
he  offered  sacrifices  and  implorations. 

The  primitive  interpretations  of  the  su- 
preme energy  improved  with  man's  growth 
in  culture.  The  lower  conceptions  gave 
way  to  something  better,  and  these  to  some- 
thing still  better  —  fetichism  to  idolatry, 
idolatry  to  polytheism,  polytheism  to  mon- 
otheism. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  Buddhism  is 
a  godless  religion,  and  this  assertion  has 
been  used  as  a  foundation  for  the  assump- 
tion that  a  belief  in  God  is  not  fundamen- 
tal in  religion.  It  may  be  that  Buddhism 
recognizes  no  supreme  being,  but  it  is 
[     »'6    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

not  true  that  Buddhism  recognizes  no 
power  or  powers  that  right  things.  No 
religion  recognizes  more  completely  than 
Buddhism  the  eternal  forces  of  reward  and 
retribution,  as  is  illustrated  in  Karma,  the 
law  of  just  consequences. 

Religion  deals  fundamentally  with  the 
higher  duties  and  obligations  of  man- 
kind. It  has  assumed  naturally,  indeed 
necessarily,  that  man  is  subject  to  some 
order  or  ruler  possessed  of  unlimited 
power.  While  the  lower  cults  have  recog- 
nized in  the  fetich  or  idol  a  force  which 
is  helpful  of  or  considerate  to  mankind, 
the  more  elevated  races  and  sects  have 
attributed  more  sublime  qualities  to  the 
supreme  force.  A  divine  power  is  recog- 
nized in  Varuna,  the  chief  deity  of  the 
early  Aryans;  in  Brahma,  the  absolute 
of  the  Hindoos;  in  Jehovah,  the  almighty 
of  the  Hebrews  and  Christians;  in  Odin, 
the  all-father  of  the  Norsemen;  in  Zeus, 
the  highest  deity  of  the  Greeks;  in  Jupiter, 
[     '^7     ] 


BALANCE 

the  chief  God  of  the  Romans;  in  Allah, 
the  one  God  of  the  Mohammedans.  The 
strongest  words  expressive  of  beneficence 
and  omnipotence  are  applied  habitually  to 
God  —  the  providence,  the  divine,  the  in- 
finite, the  eternal,  the  all-powerful,  the  all- 
present,  the  all-holy,  the  immutable,  the 
most  high,  the  ruler  of  heaven  and  earth, 
the  king  of  kings,  the  light  of  the  world, 
the  sun  of  righteousness.  We  may  safely 
claim  that  the  belief  in  a  supreme  power 
that  rights  things  is  fundamental  in  re- 
ligion. 


[     "8    ] 


XIV 

The  Fundamental  Meaning  of  Religion  is  revealed 
by  its  History — Religion  recognizes  that  Right 
rules  the  World —  Science  recognizes  that  Balance 
rules  the  World  —  Religion  and  Science  are  in 
Harmony,  not  in  Conflict. 

WE  have,  then,  three  fundamental 
religious  beliefs: 

I.    That  the  soul  is  account- 
able for  its  actions. 

2.  That  the  soul  survives  the  death  of 
the  body. 

2)-  In  ci  supreme  -power  that  rights 
things. 

The  belief  that  the  soul  is  accountable 
for  its  actions^  is  the  recognition  that  the 
law  of  consequences  applies  to  the  indi- 
vidual soul,  that  the  good  shall  fare  better 
than  the  evil,  that  men  shall  reap  as  they 
sow. 

The  belief  that  the  soul  survives  the 
[     ^'9    ] 


BALANCE 

death  of  the  body,  is  the  recognition  that 
accountability  does  not  end  with  the  death 
of  the  body;  that  the  wrongs  which  are  not 
righted  here  must  be  righted  elsewhere; 
that  the  good  which  is  not  rewarded  here 
must  be  rewarded  hereafter;  that  there  can 
be  no  break  in  the  processes  of  account- 
ability. As  science  assumes  that  cause  and 
effect,  action  and  reaction,  motion  and 
transformation,  are  ceaseless  in  the  phys- 
ical world,  so  religion  assumes  that  cause 
and  effect,  actions  and  consequences,  are 
ceaseless  in  the  soul  of  the  individual. 
The  religious  doctrine  of  ceaseless  moral 
accountability  is  identical  with  the  scien- 
tific doctrine  of  ceaseless  cause  and  effect. 
The  belief  in  a  supreme  power  that 
rights  things,  is  the  necessary  corollary  of 
the  two  preceding  beliefs.  The  doctrines 
that  the  actions  of  the  individual  will  be 
balanced  by  their  consequences,  and  that 
this  process  does  not  cease  with  death, 
include    the    recognition   of    a    supreme 

[       »20       ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

power  of  Tightness  —  a  power  that  rights 
things. 

Combined,  read  from  one  into  the  other, 
what  is  the  message  conveyed  by  these 
three  fundamental  religious  beliefs  ?  Are 
they  in  harmony  or  in  conflict?  is  the 
message  discordant,  or  feeble,  or  subtle, 
or  unworthy  of  the  great  fact  which  we 
call  religion  ?  or  is  it  harmonious,  simple 
and  clear,  a  noble  interpretation  of  divine 
truth?  This  is  the  message  of  the  funda- 
mental religious  beliefs:  That  man  is 
accountable  for  his  actions  j  that  he  is  sub- 
ject ceaselessly  to  the  law  of  Just  conse- 
quences, to  a  supreme  power  of  rightness. 
The  message  is  so  clear  and  simple  that 
it  may  even  be  more  briefly  expressed 
as  the  declaration  that  right  rules  the 
world. 

This  interpretation  of   the  meaning  of 

religion  is  not  the    interpretation  of   one 

sect  or  church,  of  one  time  or  place ;  it  is 

the  interpretation  of  all  sects  and  churches 

[    '^'    ] 


BALANCE 

that  can  be  classed  as  religious,  and  of  all 
times  and  places  in  which  religion  has 
been  manifest.  It  is  not  the  product  of 
speculation  or  inspiration;  it  is  the  product 
of  all  human  experience  bearing  upon  the 
subject  of  religion.  The  meaning  of  re- 
ligion, the  message  of  religion,  is  found  in 
its  own  history.  Religion  contains  within 
itself  its  own  story,  as  the  rocks  contain 
within  themselves  their  own  story.  The 
message  of  religion  is  not  vague,  difficult 
or  unworthy;  it  is  plain,  easy  to  compre- 
hend; it  is  lofty  and  good.  Mankind's 
recognition  of  religion  as  something  holy, 
sacred  and  divine  is  fully  justified  by  the 
interpretation  of  religion  revealed  by  the 
history  of  religion  —  that  right  rules  the 
world. 

We  have  observed  the  harmony  in  the 
scientific  interpretations  of  the  system  of 
Nature — that  each  interpretation  points 
unerringly  to  a  higher  and  single  interpre- 
tation. And  we  now  observe  the  same 
[    >"    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

harmony  in  the  fundamental  conceptions 
of  religion,  which  point  with  equal  certi- 
tude to  a  conclusion  in  unity  with  the  su- 
preme interpretation  reached  by  science. 

Religion,  dealing  with  the  essential  obli- 
gations and  relations  of  man,  rests  with 
the  recognition  of  eternal  justice  —  that 
right  rides  the  world.  Science,  dealing 
with  all  truth,  with  the  explanation  and 
reconciliation  of  all  phenomena,  advances 
to  a  still  broader  position  —  that  balance 
rules  the  world —  a  position  so  broad  that 
it  includes  the  fundamental  grounds  of  re- 
ligion. 

Religion  and  science  are  in  harmony, 
not  in  conflict.  They  have  never  been  in 
real  conflict.  The  appearance  of  conflict 
has  been  due  to  the  misunderstanding  and 
misinterpretation  of  both  religion  and  sci- 
ence through  the  ages  in  which  men  have 
been  groping  and  toiling  upward  from 
darkness  to  light 

[    123    ] 


XV 

« 

Religion  has  been  misinterpreted  and  perverted  — 
Science  also  has  been  misinterpreted  and  per- 
verted —  Religion  answers  for  its  Perversions  as 
Science,  Truth  and  Right  answer  for  their  Per- 
versions —  The  Value  of  a  Truth  is  measured  by 
the  Magnitude  of  its  Perversions. 

SCIENCE  is  a  search  for  truth;  it 
measures  all  things  by  truth,  has  no 
other  standard  than  truth.  As  truth 
never  conflicts  with  truth,  the  demonstra- 
tions of  science  are  necessarily  harmoni- 
ous, the  same  original  demonstration  often 
being  reached  by  strangers  wide  apart. 
Science  consists  of  a  stupendous  unity 
linking  the  smallest  and  most  obscure 
truths  with  higher  truths,  and  these  with 
still  higher  truths,  on  to  their  connection 
with  fundamental  truth.  The  achieve- 
ments of  science  are  due  to  the  methods 
of  science  —  to  experimentation,  investi- 
[     iH    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

gation,  critical  examination  —  to  the  pa- 
tient weighing  of  facts  by  the  standard  of 
truth. 

Religious  thought  has  evolved  necessa- 
rily on  other  lines.  The  problems  of  re- 
ligion—  the  war  between  good  and  evil, 
the  mystery  of  life  and  death,  the  nature 
of  superhuman  powers,  of  the  government 
of  the  world,  of  the  future  state,  of  man's 
accountability  —  have  appealed  with  con- 
tinuous force  to  the  interest  and  imagina- 
tion of  men.  The  yearning  to  know  was 
gratified  in  the  beginning  by  savage  dream- 
ers and  mystics,  who  assumed  to  be,  or 
believed  themselves  to  be,  inspired  to  utter 
divine  truth.  Religion  has  been  inter- 
preted by  sorcerers  and  by  sages,  by  im- 
postors and  by  truth-seekers,  by  dull  and 
by  exalted  minds.  Some  of  the  interpreta- 
tions are  childish  or  base ;  others  supply  to 
us  our  highest  conceptions  of  honor,  duty 
and  responsibility.  Great  systems  of  faith 
grew  up,  each  claiming  to  be  built  upon 
[     ^-S    ] 


BALANCE 

sacred  and  infallible  authority.  The  re- 
ligious spirit  is  reverential  and  steadfast; 
men  have  yielded  slowly  the  faith  of  their 
fathers.  The  Hebrews  accept  one  author- 
ity, the  Buddhists  another,  the  Christians 
another,  the  Mohammedans  another,  and 
other  authorities  are  accepted  by  other 
believers.  Men  have  measured  religious 
truth  by  authority,  not  authority  by  truth. 
Each  of  the  great  systems  of  faith  assumes 
the  perfect  truth  of  its  own  authority,  and 
denies  the  truth  of  all  authority  except  its 
own,  thereby  admitting  the  existence  of 
false  authorities,  false  prophets  and  the 
worship  of  false  gods. 

Admitting  many  contradictions  and  im- 
perfections in  the  interpretation  of  religion, 
shall  we  conclude  that  there  is  no  truth  in 
religion?  Grant  numberless  errors  and 
impostures,  must  we  say  that  all  religion 
is  error  and  imposture  ?  Let  us  be  as  fair 
to  religion  as  to  science.  Have  no  errors 
or  impostures  been  advanced  in  the  name 
[     »^6    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

of  science  ?  Consider  only  that  branch  of 
science  which  deals  with  healing.  Have 
there  been  no  false  doctors  in  the  world? 
no  errors  in  determining  the  cause  and 
cure  of  disease?  no  medical  zealots,  in- 
flamed with  a  fanatical  regard  for  their 
own  methods,  and  with  enmity  for  other 
methods  ?  no  conflicting  schools  of  medi- 
cal thought?  Because  of  the  errors,  im- 
postures and  strife  known  to  exist  among 
those  engaged  in  the  art  of  healing,  do 
people  of  intelligence  conclude  that  the 
science  of  medicine  consists  wholly  of  er- 
ror, delusion  and  imposture?  that  it  has 
discovered  no  antidotes,  no  laws  of  health, 
no  causes  of  disease  ?  that  sanitation  and 
surgery  have  no  merit? 

The  record  of  the  science  of  healing 
contains  superstitions  as  dull  and  rites  as 
base  as  the  lowest  religious  cults;  indeed, 
the  false  medicine  man  and  the  false  pro- 
phet have  often  been  one  and  the  same. 
Men  have  sought  the  healer  of  the  body 
[    127    ] 


BALANCE 

because  of  their  fear  of  the  consequences 
of  physical  disease;  they  have  sought  the 
healer  of  the  soul  because  of  their  dread 
of  the  consequences  of  moral  disease.  The 
healers,  physical  and  spiritual,  have  dealt 
sometimes  in  nostrums,  exorcisms,  con- 
jurations and  sorceries;  and  again  in  bet- 
ter remedies  which,  on  the  one  hand,  have 
alleviated  pain,  cured  disease  and  saved 
life,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  have  strength- 
ened men  in  right-doing,  purified  them, 
given  them  noble  ideals  of  life  and  duty, 
and  comforted  them  in  trouble,  sorrow, 
bereavement,  agony,  and  in  the  face  of 
death. 

Let  us  not  underweigh  the  fact  that 
men  have  believed  in  their  souls,  in  life 
after  death,  in  responsibility  that  does  not 
end,  in  an  unbroken  chain  of  cause  and 
effect,  in  eternal  justice  —  that  they  have 
spanned  the  abyss  of  death  with  a  bridge 
of  faith  leading  to  a  land  where  the  ine- 
qualities, misunderstandings  and  wrongs  of 
►  [    128    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

this  life  may  be  righted.  Intuition,  instinct, 
or  some  other  form  of  insight,  sometimes 
anticipates  science.  The  supreme  law  of 
compensation,  which  the  early  mystics 
recognized  through  that  happy  insight  by 
which  men  grasp  truth  which  they  cannot 
yet  demonstrate,  science  recognizes  also 
after  thousands  of  years  of  investigation 
and  experimentation. 

Let  us  not  be  impatient.  Civilization 
was  not  made  in  a  day.  Our  sciences  have 
been  built  slowly;  they  are  not  yet  com- 
pleted, and  we  must  assume  that  they  never 
will  be  completed,  unless  it  be  possible 
that  a  time  will  come  when  truth  will  be 
exhausted.  The  search  for  truth  has  been 
slow  and  difficult,  and  many  are  the  errors 
into  which  men  have  fallen.  "  The  laws  of 
Plato,"  says  Lecky,  "  of  the  twelve  tables, 
of  the  consuls,  of  the  emperors,  and  of  all 
nations  and  legislators  —  Persian,  Hebrew, 
Greek,   Latin,   German,    French,    Italian, 

Spanish,  English  —  decreed  capital  penal- 
[    129    ] 


BALANCE 

ties  against  sorcerers."  When  Montaigne 
denounced  the  belief  in  witchcraft  as  a  de- 
lusion, its  existence  was  accepted  by  the 
foremost  magistrates,  physicians  and  scien- 
tific men  of  France.  Bacon  regarded  the 
Copernican  theory  as  a  strange  fancy. 
Kepler,  who  discovered  the  laws  of  plane- 
tary motion,  believed  that  a  spirit  guided 
the  movements  of  each  planet.  The  chem- 
ists of  the  eighteenth  century  up  to  the 
time  of  Lavoisier  believed  in  the  theory 
of  "  phlogiston,"  a  curious  error.  Priest- 
ley, the  discoverer  of  oxygen,  died  a  firm 
believer  in  phlogiston.  Guyton  de  Mor- 
veau,  Macquer  and  others  taught  that 
phlogiston  was  something  that  weighed 
less  than  nothing!  Political  science  has 
not  yet  discovered  a  way  of  governing  an 
American  city  honestly  and  efficiently,  nor 
has  economic  science  reformed  the  in- 
equitable distribution  of  wealth.  The  phi- 
losophers of  the  world,  from  the  beginning 
of  philosophy  to  the  present  day,  have 
[    '30    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

reached  no  agreement  concerning  the 
motives  of  human  actions  or  the  meaning 
of  morals. 

Science  has  achieved  much,  but  it  is  not 
at  the  end,  or  near  the  end,  of  achievement. 
It  has  struggled  up  from  small  beginnings ; 
scientific  men,  wise  men  in  their  day,  have 
accepted  error.  Science  is  not  responsible 
for  their  errors;  science  has  nothing  to  do 
with  error  but  to  reject  it.  And  so  reli- 
gious men  have  accepted  error,  and  reli- 
gion is  not  responsible  for  their  mistakes. 
It  seems  sometimes  as  if  men  must  try  all 
wrong  ways,  in  every  line  of  advancement, 
before  they  can  find  the  right  way. 

The  interpretations  of  religion  have  dealt 
with  the  questions:  How  does  right  rule 
the  world?  How  will  justice  be  done  to 
the  individual  soul?  It  is  not  strange  that 
there  have  been  numerous  and  conflicting 
answers  to  these  questions;  and  that  many 
of  these  answers  are  crude  and  ignorant, 
and  some  even  monstrous  and  forbidding. 
[     '31     ] 


BALANCE 

The  primitive  mystics,  recognizing  dimly 
the  law  of  consequences,  clothed  it  in  sym- 
bols adapted  to  their  own  comprehension 
and  to  the  comprehension  of  their  kind  — 
in  fetiches  and  idols,  in  strange  gods,  in 
numberless  forms  of  penance  and  propitia- 
tion, in  curious  judgments,  rewards  and 
penalties,  in  heavens  and  hells  which  were 
circumscribed  only  by  the  limits  of  their 
imaginations.  This  may  be  said  to  their 
credit:  they  recognized  rewards  and  pen- 
alties,  recompense  and  retribution,  heaven 
and  hell.  Their  lowest  conceptions  of  a 
future  state  included  some  recognition  of 
moral  responsibility  and  of  the  supremacy 
of  justice.  I  do  not  despise  their  efforts. 
They  expressed  man's  greatest  hope — that 
right  rules  the  world  —  in  terms  which 
they  could  understand.  They  could  do  no 
more.  If  that  hope  —  I  would  prefer  to  say 
that  truth  —  had  waited  for  its  complete 
and  perfect  exposition,  it  would  doubtless 
be  unexpressed  to  this  day. 
[    '3^    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

The  earlier  symbols  gave  way  to  better 
symbols,  and  these  to  still  better;  in  time, 
doubtless,  all  religious  symbols  will  give 
way  to  the  truth  which  they  symbolize.  En- 
lightenment grows;  superstition  dwindles. 
Thought  grows  clearer.  Many  creeds  have 
been  revised.  The  doctrines  of  a  hell  of 
literal  fire,  and  of  eternal  torment,  have 
been  abandoned  by  enlightened  people. 
This  advance  must  continue  until  the 
churches  of  civilization  shall  abandon  the 
last  form,  rite,  ceremony  and  doctrine  which 
stand  in  conflict  with  the  fundamental  reli- 
gious principle  that  right  rules  the  world. 
They  must  in  time  accept  the  book  of  Na- 
ture as  the  book  of  God,  and  recognize  that 
the  truth-finders  are  God's  prophets  —  that 
truth,  wherever  and  whenever  discovered, 
is  the  infallible  revelation  of  God  —  that 
religious  truth  can  be  demonstrated  only 
by  reason,  and  that  God's  justice  must  be 
proved  by  the  processes  of  Nature  if  it 
is  to  be  proved  at  all  —  that  God's  jus- 
[    ^33    ] 


BALANCE 

tice,  omnipotence  and  omnipresence  can 
be  proved  more  perfectly  by  the  fact 
that  cause  and  effect  are  equivalent,  com- 
pensatory, ceaseless,  all-powerful  and  all- 
present,  than  by  any  sacred  book  —  that 
science,  in  its  fundamental  interpretation 
of  the  system  of  Nature,  in  its  sublime 
conception  of  the  permanence,  uniformity 
and  rectitude  of  the  world-order,  must  be 
accepted  as  the  defender,  and  not  as  the 
antagonist,  of  religion.  There  is  no  con- 
flict in  the  revelations  of  Nature.  In  all 
times  and  places,  Nature's  laws  have  been 
the  same,  and  truth  the  same.  Never  has 
Nature  altered  or  truth  changed. 

Religion  has  been  misinterpreted ;  it 
has  also  been  perverted.  While  there  are 
no  cults  known  to  us  which  do  not  recog- 
nize the  law  of  consequences,  there  are 
many  which  teach  that  it  can  be  evaded 
—  that  the  favor  of  God  can  be  gained 
by  means  other  than  by  right-doing. 
And,  in  the  name  of  religion,  learning 
[     134    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

has  been  persecuted,  freedom  suppressed, 
great  and  cruel  wars  have  been  waged, 
and  monstrous  crimes  committed  —  in- 
cluding torture  and  many  forms  of  mur- 
der, from  the  slaughter  of  children  on  the 
sacrificial  altar  to  the  butchery  of  sects 
and  communities.  How  shall  religion 
answer  for  these  evasions,  iniquities  and 
atrocities  ? 

Wrong  seeks  to  disguise  itself  under 
the  cloak  of  right;  tyrants  claim  to  be 
good,  not  bad;  privilege,  slavery,  the  sup- 
pression of  thought,  are  represented  by 
their  beneficiaries  to  be  right,  not  wrong 
—  to  be  good  even  for  the  unprivileged, 
the  enslaved  and  the  shackled.  Error  dis- 
guises itself  as  truth.  The  liar  does  not 
say,  "  I  am  telling  you  a  lie;  "  he  says,  "  I 
am  telling  you  the  truth."  The  misinter- 
preters  of  history,  biography,  philosophy 
and  science  do  not  label  their  misinter- 
pretations as  errors;  they  proclaim  them 
as  truths. 

[     ^35     ] 


BALANCE 


Religion  must  answer  for  its  perver- 
sions as  right  answers  for  the  perversions 
of  right,  as  truth  answers  for  the  perver- 
sions of  truth,  as  science  answers  for  the 
perversions  of  science.  Right  answers 
that  its  perversions  are  wrong,  not  right; 
truth  answers  that  its  perversions  are  er- 
rors, not  truth;  science  answers  that  its 
perversions  are  unscientific,  not  scientific; 
religion  answers  that  its  perversions  are 
irreligious,  not  religious. 

Only  good  and  truth  can  be  perverted* 
The  value  and  quality  of  a  good  or  truth 
—  the  usefulness  of  the  art  of  healing,  the 
nobility  of  toleration  and  justice,  the  value 
of  science  —  are  measured  with  accuracy 
by  the  wide  extent  of  its  perversions.  And 
so  also  the  usefulness,  nobility  and  value 
of  religion  are  indicated  by  the  magnitude 
of  its  perversions.  I  believe  that  the  per- 
versions of  religion  —  unequaled  as  they 
are  in  magnitude  by  any  other  record  of 
perversion  —  point  unerringly  to  the  con- 
C     »36    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

elusion  that  religion  rests  fundamentally 
upon  a  great  and  noble  truth. 

Religion  is  single,  not  plural.  There  is 
only  one  religion.  The  creeds  written,  the 
acts  done,  in  the  name  of  religion  are  re- 
ligious in  so  far  as  they  conform  to  the 
fundamental  religious  principle  that  right 
rules  the  world;  they  are  irreligious  in  so 
far  as  they  are  in  conflict  with  that  prin- 
ciple. 


[    137    ] 


XVI 

Measuring  the  Value  of  Religion  by  its  Denial  — 
Only  One  School  of  Thought  denies  Religion  — 
Materialism  is  the  Doctrine  that  Wrong  rules  the 
World  —  Science  and  Religion  meet  on  Grounds 
of  Life,  not  Death ;  of  Persistence,  not  Annihila- 
tion ;  of  Right,  not  Wrong ;  on  the  Ground  that  the 
Laws  of  Nature  are  Uniform,  not  Contradictory. 

WE  can  measure  the  strength  or 
weakness    of    religion    by    the 
strength  or  weakness  of  its  op- 
posite, its  denial.    If  religion  be  strong,  its 
denial  will  be  weak;  if  religion  be  weak, 
its  denial  will  be  strong. 

The  denial  that  right  rules  the  world  is 
the  affirmation  that  wrong  rules  the  world. 
The  assumption  that  wrong  rules  the  world 
has  no  foundation  in  the  demonstrations  of 
science  —  which  point  unerringly  to  the 
return  of  equivalence  and  compensation  in 
the  processes  of  Nature  —  and  has  had 
C     >38     ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

slight  recognition  in  human  thought.  It  is 
true  that  men  have  held  beliefs  which  lead 
logically  to  the  conclusion  that  wrong 
rules  the  world,  but  there  have  been  few 
who  could  accept  that  conclusion.  No 
school  of  thought  proclaims  it,  and  it  rarely 
secures  lodgment  in  the  human  mind  save 
as  the  consequence  of  pessimism  or  mis- 
fortune. We  must  conclude  that  the  denial 
of  religion  which  takes  form  in  the  asser- 
tion that  wrong  rules  the  world  is  weak, 
not  strong. 

The  existence  of  a  supreme  power  — 
whether  it  be  accepted  as  personal  or  as 
impersonal,  as  knowable  or  as  unknowable 
—  is  universally  recognized.  It  is  usually 
assumed  to  be  a  power  of  rightness.  It 
could  not  be  called  a  power  of  wrongness 
without  accepting  the  weak  conclusion 
that  wrong  rules  the  world. 

The  assumption  that  man  is,  or  should 
be,  accountable  for  his  actions,  is  recog- 
nized in  our  civil  and  criminal  laws,  which 
[     »39    ] 


BALANCE 

enforce  penalties  upon  wrong-doing,  and 
compel  men  to  keep  their  contracts  and 
pay  their  debts;  in  our  moral  code,  and  in 
our  judgments  concerning  right  and  wrong. 
The  alternative,  that  men  should  not  reap 
as  they  sow,  should  not  enjoy  what  they 
earn,  should  not  suffer  for  their  evil  acts, 
is  recognized  nowhere.  A  few  believe 
that  wrong  does  rule  the  world,  but  no 
one  can  believe  that  wrong  should  rule 
the  world. 

Only  one  fundamental  religious  bfelief 
—  the  belief  in  a  future  life  —  is  denied 
with  force  or  persistence.  Many  men,  in- 
cluding some  of  the  great  intellects  of  the 
world,  from  Confucius  to  Herbert  Spencer, 
have  doubted  or  denied  that  the  soul  sur- 
vives the  death  of  the  body. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  annihilation  of  the  soul  has  not  yet  ac- 
quired a  definite  name,  though  its  adher- 
ents include  a  number  of  learned  men, 
capable  in  the  expression  of  thought  and 
[    140    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

in  the  coining  of  words.  "  Materialism " 
is  the  word  used,  in  the  absence  of  a  better, 
to  name  this  doctrine,  but  the  dictionaries 
do  not  justify  that  use.  Haeckel,  recog- 
nizing its  namelessness,  has  recently  in- 
vented the  word  "thanatism" — in  English, 
"  deathism  "  —  a  fit  name  for  the  belief  in 
the  extinction  of  the  soul.  I  shall,  how- 
ever, use  the  word  "  materialism,"  which 
is  better  known. 

What  rational  foundation  exists  for  the 
belief  in  annihilation?  Has  science  dis- 
covered annihilation?  No;  science  has 
not  discovered  annihilation;  it  has  not 
discovered  annihilation  even  in  the  physi- 
cal body  of  man.  At  the  change  which, 
through  old  custom,  we  call  death,  the 
physical  body  of  the  individual  is  trans- 
formed under  ordinary  conditions  into 
numberless  other  living  bodies,  the  one 
life  into  swarms  of  life.  Even  if  the  physi- 
cal body  be  consumed  by  fire,  not  one 
atom  is  annihilated,  and  life  springs  from 
[     HI     ] 


BALANCE 


the  ashes.  Science  is  acquainted  with  mo- 
tion onl}',  not  rest ;  with  life,  not  death. 
Science  recognizes  the  indestructibility 
of  matter  and  force,  that  nothing  in  the 
physical  world  is  annihilated.  It  comes  to 
this  —  that  the  materialist,  accepting  the 
immortality  of  matter  and  force,  must 
affirm  that  nothing  dies  but  the  soul. 

There  are  other  and  more  serious  incon- 
sistencies in  the  theory  of  annihilation. 
The  ceaselessness  of  action  and  reaction, 
of  cause  and  effect,  is  a  fundamental  postu- 
late of  science.  "  To  every  action  there 
is  an  equal  and  opposite  reaction."  If  death 
ends  all,  then  the  individual  reaches  in 
extinction  a  point  where  moral  effect  fails 
to  follow  moral  cause,  and  the  materialist 
must  deny  the  ceaselessness  of  cause  and 
effect. 

One  dies  in  the  commission  of  a  crime, 
when  his  heart  is  full  of  greed  or  lust  or 
hate;  if  death  ends  all,  he  suffers  no  con-    . 
sequences  of  his  sin;  he  goes  to  the  same 
[    142    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

silence  which  awaits  the  martyr  who  dies 
for  man.  If  suicide  be  a  sin,  then  the  sui- 
cide commits  an  act,  if  death  ends  all,  for 
which  there  is  no  penalty.  The  doctrine 
of  extinction  includes  the  assumption  that 
there  will  be  no  reckoning  hereafter  for 
the  tyrants,  oppressors  and  scourgers  of 
the  weak,  for  the  brutes  who  trample  on 
women  and  children,  for  ingrates  and 
murderers,  for  those  who  have  tortured 
their  kind  —  that  man  sows  what  he  will 
not  reap,  and  reaps  what  he  has  not  sown. 
Religion  affirms,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
death  does  not  break  the  chain  of  cause 
and  effect;  that  men  shall  reap  as  they 
sow;  that  there  shall  come  a  day  of  reck- 
oning for  the  tyrant  and  the  torturer;  that 
the  suicide  shall  not  escape  the  conse- 
quences of  self  destruction;  that  no  man 
shall  escape  the  penalty  of  his  sin,  or  be 
denied  the  reward  of  his  virtue;  that,  for 
those  who  live  justly,  there  is  no  trouble 
which  will  not  end,  no  night  of  sorrow  or 
[     H3     ] 


BALANCE 

anguish  which  will  not  be  succeeded  by 
the  dawn  of  peace  and  joy. 

Religion  declares  that  moral  accounta- 
bility is  ceaseless;  materialism  declares 
that  moral  accountability  ends  in  death. 
Religion  is  the  recognition  that  right  rules 
the  world;  materialism  is  the  recognition 
that  wrong  rules  the  world.  Religion  de- 
clares that  the  wrongs  which  are  not 
righted  here  will  be  righted  hereafter; 
materialism  declares  that  the  wrongs  which 
are  not  righted  here  luill  be  righted  no- 
where. 

Materialism  is  a  sweeping  denial  of 
good  and  right.  In  denying  the  ceaseless- 
ness  of  action  and  reaction,  it  denies  the 
uniformity  of  Nature;  in  denying  the  per- 
sistence of  the  soul,  it  proqlaims  the  doc- 
trine of  annihilation,  which  is  unknown 
to  science;  in  denying  the  continuance 
of  human  accountability,  it  denies  the 
foundation  of  morals.  Materialism  is  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  wrong,  of  hopeless  in- 
[    H4    ] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  VERITY 

justice.  Comprehending  the  nature  and 
meaning  of  the  theory  of  annihilation, 
we- shall  understand  why  it  is  nameless; 
why  our  language  has  failed  to  produce 
a  word  to  fit  its  exact  meaning;  why  its 
most  famous  living  defender,  Haeckel, 
has  been  unable  to  coin  for  it  a  better 
name  than  the  somber  and  forbidding  word 
"  deathism." 

We  shall  search  in  vain  for  any  good 
or  substantial  fruits  of  materialism  —  for 
hospitals,  charities  or  institutions  of  learn- 
ing founded  in  its  name  or  honor;  for 
monuments  which  recognize  it;  for  any 
part  that  it  has  played  in  the  advancement 
of  civilization;  for  uplifting  songs,  hymns, 
poems  or  speeches  inspired  by  it;  for  a 
noble  thought  or  sentiment  that  is  depend- 
ent upon  it;  for  sublime  or  heroic  deeds 
in  its  defense.  The  doctrine  of  material- 
ism, built  upon  an  imperfect  understand- 
ing of  its  relations  and  consequences,  is  a 
cold,  dry,  unstimulating  faith  which  has 
[     H5     ] 


BALANCE 

never  reached  the  human  heart  save  with 
the  icy  touch  of  hopelessness  and  despair. 

The  scientific  interpretations  of  Nature 
have  advanced  constantly  in  breadth  — 
into  the  uniform,  the  boundless,  the  uni- 
versal, the  ceaseless,  the  deathless.  Upon 
these  broad  grounds,  religion  and  science 
meet — on  the  ground  of  life,  not  death; 
of  persistence,  not  annihilation;  of  right, 
not  wrong;  on  the  ground  of  the  uniform- 
ity of  Nature:  that  the  consequences  of 
human  action  are  as  definite  as  the  conse- 
quences of  chemical  action;  that  the  laws 
of  equivalence  and  compensation  which 
operate  in  the  realm  of  physics  act  with 
the  same  unfailing  certainty,  and  with  the 
same  eternal  ceaselessness,  upon  the  soul 
of  man. 


[     h6    ] 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 


REVIEWS  OF  "BALANCE" 

Desiring  that  the  theory  herein  advanced 
should  be  tested  by  intelligent  criticism,  I 
authorized  a  New  York  literary  syndicate 
to  send  a  preliminary  edition  of  this  vol- 
ume, containing  the  foregoing  matter,  to  a 
number  of  persons  prominent  in  literary, 
scientific,  philosophic  or  religious  work, 
asking  each  for  a  brief  review  of  "  Bal- 
ance." The  letter  of  the  syndicate  was  as 
follows : 

"  We  are  mailing  to  you  to-day  an  advance  copy  of 
'  Balance :  The  Fundamental  Verity,'  by  Orlando 
J.  Smith,  in  which  the  author  seeks  for  the  funda- 
mental harmony  between  physical  science  and  natural 
religion.  We  should  be  glad  to  receive  from  you  a 
review,  not  exceeding  five  hundred  words,  of  this 
book,  confined  to  any  or  all  of  these  topics : 
[     H9     ] 


BALANCE 

"  I.  Is  the  author  right  or  wrong  in  his  conclusion 
that  scientific  experience  and  the  higher  interpreta- 
tions of  the  system  of  Nature  point  distinctly  to  one 
fundamental  interpretation  —  the  return  of  equiva- 
lence and  compensation  in  all  interactions  ? 

"  2.  Is  he  right  or  wrong  in  his  conclusion  that  the 
moral  accountability  of  the  individual,  extended  into 
a  future  life,  is  fundamental  in  religion  ? 

"3.  Is  he  right  or  wrong  in  his  conclusion  that 
the  scientific  conception  of  physical  action  as  cease- 
less and  compensatory  is  identical  with  the  reli- 
gious conception  of  human  action  as  being  also 
ceaseless  and  compensatory;  in  other  words,  is 
Newton's  axiom,  '  To  every  action  there  is  an  equal 
reaction,'  the  counterpart  of  the  religious  doctrine 
of  just  consequences  —  that  men  shall  reap  as  they 
sow? 

"  We  hope  to  receive  your  judgment  —  whether  it 
be  favorable  or  unfavorable  —  of  this  effort  to  recon- 
cile science  and  religion." 

The  reviews  were  not  sought  with  the 
intention  of  including  them  in  this  volume. 
Since  they  have  come  into  my  hands,  how- 
ever, the  conviction  has  struck  me  that 
they  properly  belong  here  —  that  the  views 
[     -50    ] 


APPENDIX 


of  so  many  persons,  each  one  competent 
in  his  own  field  and  each  looking  at  the 
issue  from  a  standpoint  different  from  the 
others,  would  be  welcome  to  the  reader 
and  helpful  in  this  investigation. 

Nothing  written  in  these  reviews  is 
omitted  here.  Accepting  comments  crit- 
ical and  unfavorable,  I  also  accept  com- 
ments generous  and  commendatory.  I 
reserve  the  liberty  of  responding  to  my 
critics  in  conclusion. 

By  W.  H.  MALLOCK. 

Author  of  "/s  Life  Worth  Liinng  f  "  etc. 

Mr.  Orlando  J.  Smith  belongs  to  the  number,  now 
happily  increasing,  of  thinkers  who,  accepting  the 
fundamental  postulates  of  religion,  frankly  accept 
also  the  discoveries  of  modern  science  and  endeavor 
to  reconcile  the  two  without  mutilating  either.  Even 
if  they  fail  to  accomplish  their  task  they  are  helpful 
because  they  illustrate  itS'  difficulties.  Mr.  Orlando 
J.  Smith  is  helpful  in  this  way. 

In  his  previous  volume,  "  Eternalism,"  Mr.  Smith 
has  taken  his  stand  on  the  theory  that  the  soul  is 
[     ^51     ] 


BALANCE 


a  self  existing,  uncreated  and  indestructible  entity 
which,  though  temporarily  associated  with  the  body 
or  a  succession  of  bodies  and  partially  determined 
in  its  conduct  by  the  physical  organism  and  its  envi- 
ronment, still  retains  an  inherent  element  of  freedom, 
in  virtue  of  which  alone  it  is  morally  accountable 
for  its  actions.  This  theory,  in  his  present  volume, 
"Balance,"  he  seeks  to  substantiate  by  analogies 
drawn  from  the  physical  universe,  and  in  especial 
from  what  he  calls  the  principle  of  balance  itself,  this 
being,  according  to  him,  the  "  fundamental  verity  " 
of  Nature. 

What  Mr.  Smith  means  by  balance  is,  he  says, 
Newton's  law,  considered  under  its  widest  aspect, 
that  "  to  every  action  there  is  an  equal  and  opposite 
reaction,"  and  he  goes  on  to  argue  that  what  is  bal- 
ance in  the  natural  world  reproduces  itself  in  the 
moral  world  as  justice.  Whatever  a  man  does,  be 
it  good  or  bad,  there  necessarily  follows  on  this  an 
equal  and  opposite  reaction,  of  which  he  is  either  the 
beneficiary  or  the  victim.  Men,  however,  often  die 
before  this  reaction  is  complete,  and,  unless  their 
personalities  survived  physical  death,  the  great  law 
of  justice,  or  moral  balance,  would  be  defeated. 
But  such  breaks  in  the  cosmic  law  Mr.  Smith  regards 
as  incredible.  We  are  bound,  therefore,  by  common 
sense  to  accept  the  immortality  of  the  soul  as  a  fact. 
[     ^52     ] 


APPENDIX 


Nor  do  we  depend,  he  adds,  on  this  moral  argument 
only.  It  is  reinforced  by  the  great  scientific  gener- 
alization that  nothing,  whether  matter  or  energy,  is 
ever  created  or  destroyed,  and,  if  the  individual  atom 
is  indestructible,  so  also  is  the  individual  life. 

Such,  in  outline,  is  Mr.  Smith's  argument.  It  is 
impossible  here  to  do  it  justice  in  detail,  but  enough 
has  been  said  to  make  intelligible  a  brief  account  of 
the  faults  which  Mr.  Smith  must  expect  his  critics  to 
find  in  it.  In  the  first  place,  as  he  himself  admits, 
his  law  of  balance  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the 
law  of  cause  and  effect  viewed  under  a  particular  as- 
pect. In  the  second  place,  it  is,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
neither  more  nor  less  than  a  system  of  pure  deter- 
minism, and  is  associated  with  a  principle  of  moral 
freedom  in  the  individual  only  because  Mr.  Smith 
assumes  this  as  a  matter  of  faith,  not  because  he  has 
succeeded  in  discovering  any  scientific  proof  of  it. 
In  the  third  place,  his  law  of  balance  being,  on  his 
own  admission,  convertible  into  a  law  of  justice  only 
by  means  of  the  doctrine  that  the  human  soul  is  im- 
mortal, his  doctrine  of  its  immortality  is  an  assump- 
tion, no  less  than  is  his  doctrine  of  its  freedom,  and 
the  manner  in  which  he  attempts  to  show  that  this 
is  not  the  case  illustrates  perhaps  more  clearly  than 
anything  else  the  kind  of  defect  by  which  much  of 
his  reasoning  is  vitiated.  Science,  he  says,  shows  us 
[     ^53     ] 


BALANCE 

that  the  individual  life  must  be  immortal,  because 
science  shows  us  that  nothing  which  exists  can  be 
destroyed.  That  nothing  can  be  destroyed  is  in  one 
sense  perfectly  true,  but  in  another  it  is  equally  false. 
If  science  shows  us  that  in  one  sense  nothing  is 
destroyed,  it  shows  us  also  that  in  another  sense 
nothing  endures.  The  material  of  the  rose  is  inde- 
structible, but  the  same  rose  never  blossoms  twice. 
Mr.  Smith's  argument  can  apply  to  the  soul  only 
on  the  assumption  that  the  soul  is  a  non-composite 
unity.  His  assumption  may  be  true,  but  it  has  no 
foundation  in  science.  Mr.  Smith,  indeed,  himself,  on 
page  128,  gives  his  case  away  when  he  says  that  "  the 
abyss  of  death  is  spanned  by  the  bridge  of  faith." 
All,  in  short,  that  his  writings  can  thus  far  be  said  to 
have  done  is  to  show  what  religion  insists  on  adding 
to  science,  not  what  it  succeeds  in  finding  in  it. 
Bachelors'  Club,  London, 
June  II,  1904. 

By  benjamin  KIDD. 

Author  of  '■'■Social  Evolution^''  "  Principles  of  Western 
Civilization^''  "  Sociology ^^  etc. 

In  this  little  book  of  one  hundred  and  forty-six 
pages  there  is  briefly  put  by  Mr.  Smith  the  secret  of 
the  social  significance  of  all  the  principal  religions 
[     »54     ] 


APPENDIX 


of  the  world.  The  present  position  of  thought  in 
relation  to  religious  subjects  is  extremely  interesting. 
The  theory  of  balance  which  the  author  puts  forward 
in  this  book  as  the  fundamental  truth  of  human 
knowledge  brings  partially  into  view  the  scientific 
side  of  a  larger  synthesis  toward  which  we  appear  to 
be  moving. 

As  the  theory  of  evolution  has  come  to  be  better 
understood  we  have  in  sight  what  may  be  called  the 
two  great  protagonists  in  the  drama  of  the  human 
mind  as  it  unfolds  itself  in  history.  On  one  side  of 
this  drama  we  have  the  individual  concerned  with 
his  own  welfare  and  with  his  own  interests  and 
emotions  in  a  brief  lifetime.  With  the  lust  of  self 
preservation  and  self  realization  within  these  limits 
strong  upon  him,  he  listens,  with  ear  at  times  fiercely 
attuned,  as  there  pipe  unto  him  all  the  sensualists  of 
philosophy.  Now  in  Lucretius  and  anon  in  Omar 
Khayyam  he  catches  the  echo  of  his  mood  against 
the  insolence  of  things  that  would  subordinate  him 
to  any  larger  meaning  than  that  within  the  horizon 
of  his  own  cultivated  indulgence.  In  still  wilder 
moods  he  dances  to  Nietzsche,  for  to  that  modern 
Fury,  slinging  flame,  the  systems  of  "  cow  philoso- 
phy" and  "  herding  morality  "  which  society  and  the 
religions  which  accompany  it  impose  on  him  are 
intolerable.  Are  they  not  only  the  organized  expres- 
[     '55     ] 


BALANCE 

sion  of  the  same  insolence  written  still  larger  ?  The 
merit  of  Mr.  Smith  is  that  he  sees  all  these  impulses 
and  the  theories  of  things  to  which  they  give  rise  as 
no  more  than  the  broken  fragments  they  really  are. 
They  form  no  basis  for  a  true  philosophy  of  our 
lives  either  as  individuals  or  as  members  of  society. 
They  are  only  expressions  of  a  want  of  insight  in 
understanding  the  nature  and  balance  of  the  synthe- 
sis of  which  we  form  part.  They  represent  the  feel- 
ings that  resolve  themselves  on  the  larger  stage  of 
history  in  anti-social  institutions,  in  the  absolutisms 
of  politics,  in  the  tyrannies  of  chattel  slavery  or  in 
the  Caesars.who  climb  to  power  over  the  bodies  of 
millions  of  their  victims. 

On  the  other  side  of  this  drama  of  the  human  mind 
we  have  again  the  individual.  With  a  sense  of  some 
larger  balance  equally  strong  upon  him,  he  cannot 
find  and  is  destined  never  to  find  in  sensualism  any 
final  reconciliation  between  what  are  to  him  the  com- 
peting claims  of  self  culture  on  the  one  hand  and  social 
justice  on  the  other.  Feeling  responsibilities  through 
his  conduct  to  a  process  the  meaning  of  which  far 
transcends  the  reach  of  his  own  indulgences,  systems 
of  morality  and  religion  are  all  expressions  of  the 
inevitable  attempt  to  which  the  individual  is  driven 
to  restore  the  balance.  Right,  in  this  larger  sense, 
Mr.  Smith  therefore  defines  to  be  "  the  rendering  of 
[     156     ] 


APPENDIX 


equivalents."  "  Duty,"  he  well  says,  "is  a  debt,  lit- 
erally a  due,  which  we  owe  to  ourselves  or  to  others. 
The  Golden  Rule  is  a  perfect  law  of  equivalent  ex- 
change, and  Kant's  *  categorical  imperative  '  —  '  Act 
according  to  that  maxim  only  which  you  can  wish 
at  the  same  time  to  become  the  universal  law '  —  is 
also  an  exact  law  of  reciprocity."  From  this  posi- 
tion Mr.  Smith's  development  is  suggestive.  The 
sense  of  justice  in  man  he  properly  conceives  to  be 
the  sense  of  necessary  consequences  and  therefore  of 
balance  in  a  larger  synthesis.  Religion  rests  on  the 
recognition  of  eternal  justice  —  that  right  rule  of  the 
world.  Science  is  advancing  to  the  position  that 
balance  rules  the  world,  "  a  position  so  broad  that  it 
includes  the  fundamental  grounds  of  religion."  From 
this  it  follows,  Mr.  Smith  considers,  that  the  truth 
finders  are  true  prophets ;  that  "  truth,  wherever  and 
whenever  discovered,  is  the  infallible  revelation  of 
God." 

Mr.  Smith's  little  book  is  a  system  of  philosophy  in 
brief.  In  reaching,  at  the  end,  the  conclusion  that 
the  fundamental  principle  of  religious  belief  is  the 
feeling  that  the  moral  accountability  of  the  individual 
soul  altogether  transcends  the  meaning  of  the  brief 
span  of  the  individual's  life  and  of  the  interests 
within  it,  he  is  not  far  from  one  of  th^  ultimate  posi- 
tions of  evolutionary  philosophy.  He  is  at  the  same 
[     '57     ] 


BALANCE 


time  very  close  to  what  always  has  been  and  to  what 
probably  always  will  be  a  vital  precept  of  the  highest 
forms  of  religion. 

Westgate,  South  Croydon,  England, 
June  20,  1904. 

By  AMOS   EMERSON   DOLBEAR,   LL.  D. 
Professor  of  Physics^  Tufts  College. 

Vicissitudes,  both  physical  and  moral,  run  through 
the  whole  gamut  of  possibilities  in  life.  Violence, 
suffering  and  injustice  come  to  the  best  of  mankind 
as  often  as  to  the  worst,  and  it  has  always  been  so. 
Some,  like  Milton,  have  tried  to  justify  the  ways  of 
God  to  man  with  preternatural  assumptions,  yet  no 
one  has  succeeded  with  such  arguments.  Some  have 
assumed  there  is  no  moral  order,  only  chaos,  in  world 
ethics,  though  order  is  recognized  in  the  scheme  of 
inanimate  things,  even  in  earthquakes,  volcanoes  and 
overwhelming  storms,  and  such  stoical  thinkers  have 
abandoned  the  thought  of  any  ultimate  readjustments 
which  shall  make  good  all  damages  to  sentient  beings. 

Mr.  Smith  thinks  the  solution  is  not  so  hopeless, 
and  he  seeks  to  show  by  analogies  in  the  fields  of 
our  best  knowledge  that  the  so-called  laws  of  Nature 
have  for  their  foundation  the  principle  of  action  and 
reaction  which  sooner  or  later  evens  up  all  malad- 
[     '58     ] 


APPENDIX 


justments.  He  calls  this  balance,  and  traces  out 
the  process  in  many  fields,  astronomical,  geological, 
physical  and  meteorological.  The  doctrine  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy  implies  that  all  the  forms  of 
energy  have  their  exact  equivalence  in  other  forms 
of  energy  into  which  they  may  be  transformed  and 
balance  is  exactly  maintained. 

"  Nature,"  he  says,  "  has  no  profit  and  loss  ac- 
count, no  bad  debts,  no  failure  in  compensation,", 
and  this  applies  to  all  things,  big  and  little.  In  this 
he  is  right.  We  could  have  no  science  if  it  were 
otherwise.  He  might  have  added  that  all  processes 
in  Nature  go  on  in  a  rhythmical  way  and  no  excur- 
sion of  a  particle  can  ever  outreach  the  reaction 
agency  which  shall  exactly  balance  its  adventure.  A 
comet  may  travel  away  from  the  sun  for  a  hundred 
years,  but  the  sun  will  certainly  pull  it  back  again. 

In  human  affairs  similar  laws  of  compensation  are 
traced,  and  here,  as  in  the  physical  domain,  the 
rhythm  is  often  in  long  periods,  but  never  failure  of 
balance. 

Again,  in  Nature  there  are  no  known  inconsist- 
encies. No  law  of  Nature  is  inconsistent  with  any 
other  law.  Indeed,  this  is  our  test  for  truth  —  that 
the  statement  which  embodies  it  must  be  consistent 
with  every  other  known  truth,  and  by  implication  with 
every  other  truth,  though  unknown  now. 
[     ^59     ] 


BALANCE 

All  this  is  summoned  by  Mr.  Smith  to  give  coher- 
ence and  strengthen  the  conviction  entertained  by 
all  religiously  minded  persons  that  ultimately  all 
the  ills  of  life,  all  injustice  and  misery  endured  by 
individuals,  will  as  certainly  be  corrected  and  bal- 
anced. On  such  a  basis  the  whole  of  creation,  so  far 
as  we  have  yet  learned,  is  maintained  and  teaches 
that  lesson. 

,  There  is  no  reason  for  holding  that  there  is  a  hiatus 
between  physical  things  and  mental  things.  If  there 
is  not,  then  is  Mr.  Smith's  contention  sound  and  he 
deserves  praise  for  calling  attention  to  the  significance 
of  fundamental  physical  laws  in  their  relation  to 
natural  religion. 

Tufts  College,  Mass., 
May  31,  1904. 

By  MANGASAR  M.   MANGASARIAN. 
Editor  of  "■  The  Liberal  Review  "  Chicago. 

•'  Balance "  is  the  name  of  a  little  book  with  a 
great  aim.  Its  author,  Mr.  Orlando  J,  Smith,  sets  out 
as  a  new  Columbus  to  discover  not  another  earth, 
but  another  truth  which  shall  give  to  all  .known  truths 
new'meaning  and  worth.  This  truth  he  believes  he 
has  discovered  and  christens  it  "  the  fundamental 
verity."  Lucid  illustrations  are  massed  together  with 
[     ,60     ] 


APPENDIX 


telling  effect  to  show  that  Nature  is  equipped  with  a 
self  curative  genius  which  makes  discord  an  impos- 
sibility. "That  which  is  overdone  in  one  direction  is 
underdone  equally  in  an  opposite  direction."  This 
rhythm,  this  equivalence,  which  pulls  the  pendulum 
in  one  direction  as  far  as  it  pushes  it  in  another,  is 
the  fundamental  verily,  ^hich.,  if  grasped  as  universal 
and  infallible,  will  remove  from  our  shoulders  what 
Shakespeare  calls  "  the  weary  weight  of  all  this  un- 
intelligible world,"  and  induce  Religion  and  Science, 
the  two  gladiatorial  contestants  in  the  modern  arena, 
to  replace  their  quarrelous  weapons,  with  which  they 
have  given  and  received  gashes  deep  and  bloody, 
with  the  olive  branch  of  peace  and  concord.  Having 
undertaken  to  demonstrate  that  the  physical  world 
is  in  the  embrace  of  laws  which  forever  evolve  order 
out  of  confusion,  and  that  Balance  is  supreme  in 
every  detail  of  life,  from  the  most  momentous  to  the 
most  minute  ;  that  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  the  universe  "the  account  balances  perfectly ; " 
that  Nature  has  no  failures  and  "  no  bad  debts ; " 
that  balance  forbids  wrong  —  such,  for  instance,  as 
the  victory  of  one  force  over  another  —  the  author 
believes  that  he  has  found  in  this  fact  the  unanswer- 
able demonstration  for  the  existence  of  a  Supreme 
Being  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  Thus,  having 
given  to  these  two  ambitious  propositions  a  new 
[     '6.     ] 


BALANCE 

front,  he  concludes  that  he  has  reconciled  religion 
with  science. 

It  is  quite  easy  to  reconcile  enemies  if  they  let  you 
interpret  their  differences  to  suit  yourself.  Mr.  Smith 
defines  both  religion  and  science  with  a  view  to  recon- 
ciliation. It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  they  stop  quar- 
reling immediately.  Even  in  Mr.  Orlando  Smith's 
religion  there  is  an  element  of  the  supernatural,  a 
deus  ex  machina  who  from  the  eternities  rules  the 
world  and  is  pledged  to  see  that  in  the  end  right  shall 
prevail.  This  is  theology,  not  science.  Mr.  Smith 
starts  by  trying  to  prove  that  Nature  is  just,  orderly, 
and  that  its  accounts  are  always  perfect,  and  then,  un- 
fortunately enough,  he  drags  forth  once  more  the  ob- 
solete theological  argument  which  science  has  already 
rent  into  tatters  —  that  another  life  is  inevitable 
since  this  life  is  not  satisfactory.  Having  shown  that 
there  are  no  failures  in  Nature,  he  now  says,  "We 
must  admit,  however,  that  justice  is  incomplete  in 
this  life."  That  however  destroys  the  position  that 
Nature  is,  at  present  at  least,  governed  by  a  Supreme 
Being,  for  how  explain  the  existence  of  "  incomplete 
justice"  ?  The  proposition  that  this  Supreme  Being 
must  be  given  more  time  to  work  in  —  an  eternity, 
for  instance  —  that  he  may  turn  His  failures  to  ac- 
count, is  pure  metaphysics. 

If  for  millions  of  years  this  earth  could  roll  under 
[     '62     ] 


APPENDIX 


the  eye  of  a  Supreme  Being  and  still  be  incomplete, 
what  good  reason  have  we  to  conclude  that  the  Being 
who  has  failed  hitherto  is  going  to  do  better  in  the 
unknown  future  ?  If  a  Supreme  Being  and  injustice 
are  possible  now,  they  are  possible  forever.  What 
guarantee  have  we  that  the  future  will  not  be  like  the 
past? 

Moreover,  if  a  time  should  ever  come  when  ideal 
justice  shall  prevail  in  all  parts  of  the  universe,  then 
progress  will  be  impossible  and  Mr.  Smith's  life  be- 
yond the  grave  will  go  a-begging. 

The  man  who  has  one  talent  may  be  compensated 
with  equal  justice  with  the  man  who  has  ten.  But 
why  should  one  man  have  only  one  talent  and  his 
neighbor  ten  ?  Will  there  ever  come  a  time  when  all 
shall  have  the  same  number  of  talents  ?  And  will  life 
be  worth  living  when  such  a  time  arrives?  Why 
should  one  be  a  god  and  another  a  mere  mortal? 
And,  when  truth  has  completely  crushed  error,  what 
becomes  of  balance,  or  "  action  and  reaction  "  ? 

Ideal  justice  is  a  theological  dream.  It  has  never 
been  realized  in  the  past,  and  it  is  not  desirable  that 
it  shall  be  in  the  future. 

Toward  the  end  Mr,  Smith  develops  into  a  full 
fledged  pulpiteer,  claiming  that  no  "  hospitals,  chari- 
ties or  institutions  of  learning,  songs,  hymns,  poems, 
noble  thoughts  or  sentiments,"  are  possible  without 
[     »63     ] 


BALANCE 


the  doctrines  of  a  Supreme  Being  and  of  another 
life.  Thus  the  science  with  which  Mr.  Smith  began 
so  nobly  is  swallowed  up  in  his  theology.  It  is  the 
lamb  and  the  lion  lying  together,  but  with  the  one 
inside  the  other. 

Mr.  Smith's  "  Balance  "  is  certainly  a  thought  pro- 
voking volume,  expressive  of  the  intellectual  quest 
for  certainty  which  characterizes  our  age. 

Chicago, 
June  1 8,  1904. 

By  EDWIN   MARKHAM. 

Author  of  "  The  Man  with  the  Hoe,"  "  The  Social 
Conscience,"  etc. 

"  Balance  :  The  Fundamental  Verity,"  by  Orlando 
J.  Smith,  is  a  notable  volume,  one  that  will  be  highly 
interesting  to  all  who  take  a  serious  view  of  life  and 
its  fateful  issues.  It  treats  of  the  deepest  concerns 
of  our  destiny,  here  and  hereafter,  and  reveals  some 
of  the  grounds  and  evidences  of  a  scientific  religion 
—  a  religion  as  firmly  fixed  as  the  foundation  of  Na- 
ture itself.  The  book  is  written  in  a  style  at  once 
lucid  and  simple,  direct  as  a  singing  bullet. 

"  Balance  "  is  the  work  of  an  earnest  man  who  is 
searching  for  a  clew  to  the  moral  order  of  the  world, 
seeking  for  a  principle  that  adjusts  the  wrongs  and 
[     164    ] 


APPENDIX 


inequalities  of  this  life.  Mr.  Smith  finds  this  prin- 
ciple in  the  law  of  balance  —  a  law  that  swings 
atoms  and  worlds  and  souls  upon  its  pivot.  Care- 
fully (and  logically,  as  I  think)  he  proceeds  to  prove 
the  great  fundamental  declaration  of  religion  —  the 
declaration  that  in  the  long  swing  of  the  pendulum 
right  rules  the  world,  and  that  men  shall  reap  as 
they  sow. 

Let  me  give  in  my  own  way  and  order  some  of  the 
arguments  and  conclusions  of  this  able  book.  Nature 
reveals  a  tendency  toward  balance,  which  is  the  sav- 
ing force  in  the  world.  Everywhere  is  ceaseless  mo- 
lion.  All  things  are  in  flight,  yet  all  things  are  under 
restraint,  under  control  of  a  vast  principle  which 
curbs  excess,  restrains  deficiency,  restores  balance. 
The  sea  assails  the  shore  of  Long  Island  and  yet 
casts  up  the  sand  dunes  that  hold  back  the  sea.  The 
wagon  pulls  against  the  horse,  while  the  horse  pulls 
against  the  wagon.  To  every  action,  as  Newton  tells 
us,  there  is  an  equal  and  opposite  reaction.  Equiva- 
lence and  compensation  are  universal.  The  world  is 
built  on  the  law  of  reciprocity,  the  principle  of  the 
Golden  Rule.  No  thing  and  no  one  can  escape  the 
just  apportionments  of  the  unflinching  law. 

Science  assumes  that  cause '  and  effect,  action 
and  reaction,  are  ceaseless  in  the  world  of  matter, 
and  religion  assumes  that  cause  and  effect,  action 
[     »65     ] 


BALANCE 


and  consequence,  are  ceaseless  in  the  world  of  soul. 
Moral  as  well  as  physical  accountability  stands  on 
the  impregnable  rock  of  law — the  law  of  conse- 
quences. If  we  look  with  a  keen  eye,  we  shall  see 
that  all  things  are  busily  engaged  in  paying  their 
debts.  Man  is  no  exception  to  the  law.  We  cannot 
escape  our  obligations.  Unseen  ledgers  are  kept  by 
unseen  assessors,  and  unseen  sheriffs  are  on  our 
tracks.  "  Something  for  nothing  "  is  the  fool's  hope. 
The  thief  picks  his  own  pocket ;  the  assassin  stabs 
his  own  breast.  All  this  springs  from  the  law  of  bal- 
ance as  Mr.  Smith  has  expounded  it. 

Do  you  say  that  our  little  life  on  earth  does  not 
always  right  our  wrongs  and  inequalities  —  that 
Death  seems  suddenly  to  break  the  arm  of  Justice  ? 
Then  a  moral  universe  is  bound  to  give  us  another 
life  to  make  this  one  swing  in  balance.  Is  justice 
imperfect  in  this  world  ?  Do  we  see  villainy  victori- 
ous and  virtue  trampled  down  ?  Then  there  must  be 
another  world  to  make  this  world  right.  Mr.  Smith 
reasons,  and  reasons  justly,  that  if  death  ends  all, 
then  the  individual  reaches  in  extinction  a  point  where 
moral  effect  fails  to  follow  moral  cause.  If  death  ends 
all,  then  a  man  dying  red-handed  suffers  no  conse- 
quences, and  the  law  of  balance  snaps  asunder  like  a 
rope  of  sand.  If  there  be  no  other  world,  Caprice 
rather  than  Justice  sits  upon  the  throne.  But  this  is 
[     i66     ] 


APPENDIX 


unthinkable.   There  is,  then,  a  divine  necessity  for  a 
life  beyond  this  life. 

Thus  Mr.  Smith  reaches  a  ground  in  reason  for 
those  well  nigh  universal  convictions  among  men  — 
that  the  soul  is  accountable  for  its  actions,  that  the 
soul  survives  the  death  of  the  body,  and  that  there 
is  a  higher  power  that  rights  things.  I  thank  Mr. 
Smith  for  his  vigorous  and  satisfying  argument,  a 
demonstration  of  the  fact  that  Religion  and  Science 
stand  on  the  same  rock. 
Westerleigh,  N.  Y., 
June  15,  1904. 

By  JOHN   GRIER   HIBBEN,  PH.  D. 

Professor  of  Logic,  Princeton  University. 

The  search  for  a  condensed  formula  which  will 
explain  the  universe  is  a  most  alluring  task,  and 
many  there  are  who  have  been  attracted  to  it.  It 
would  seem  a  sufficiently  difficult  undertaking  to 
limit  one's  inquiry  to  a  single  phase  of  the  problem 
—  as,  for  example,  the  reduction  of  physical  phe- 
nomena to  some  all-comprehensive  principle.  The 
author's  endeavor,  however,  in  this  work  is  more 
ambitious.  He  claims  to  have  discovered  a  concep- 
tion so  ample  as  to  embrace  in  its  sweep  not  merely 
physical  phenomena,  but  also  social,  moral,  political 
[     ^67     ] 


BALANCE 


and  religious  phenomena  as  well,  and  all  summed 
in  a  single  word,  Balance^  a  principle  of  universal 
compensation.  The  primary  and  most  elemental 
illustration  of  this  principle  is  found  among  phys- 
ical phenomena  and  is  expressed  in  Newton's  law 
that  "  to  every  action  there  is  an  equal  and  opposite 
reaction."  A  similar  law,  Mr.  Smith  insists,  obtains 
also  in  every  sphere  of  human  activity.  In  science 
it  is  expressed  by  the  formula  that  balance  rules  the 
world ;  in  religion,  that  right  rules  the  world.  "  Re- 
ligion and  science  meet,"  he  says,  "on  the  ground 
of  the  uniformity  of  Nature  :  that  the  consequences 
of  human  action  are  as  definite  as  the  consequences  of 
chemical  action ;  that  the  laws  of  equivalence  and 
compensation  which  operate  in  the  realm  of  physics 
act  with  the  same  unfailing  certainty,  and  with  the 
same  eternal  ceaselessness,  upon  the  soul  of  man  " 
(p.  146). 

Let  us  examine  this  proposition,  inasmuch  as, 
forming  the  closing  words  of  this  volume,  it  stands 
as  the  author's  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter.  In 
general  it  should  be  observed  that  there  is  a  serious 
danger  attending  any  philosophy  which  is  reduced 
to  a  single  principle.  There  is  an  insidious  tendency, 
which  operates  unconsciously  perhaps,  to  force  the 
formula  unduly  in  order  to  make  it  cover  every  pos- 
sible variety  of  cases.  Even  in  the  physical  world 
[     »68     ] 


APPENDIX 


the  author  overlooks  many  negative  instances  of  a 
most  obvious  kind  —  the  disorder  as  well  as  the  order 
in  Nature,  dissolution  as  well  as  evolution,  death  as 
well  as  life,  the  many  catastrophes  having  no  corre- 
sponding compensation,  irremediable  disasters,  the 
dissipation  of  available  energy  and  the  newly  dis- 
covered radio-activity,  which  seems  to  be  accompa- 
nied by  no  equivalent  consumption.  But,  granting 
the  comprehensiveness  of  the  formula  for  the  phys- 
ical world,  it  does  not  hold  invariably  and  completely 
in  the  world  of  human  activities.  Is  it  true  that  the 
consequences  of  human  action  are  as  definite  as  the 
consequences  of  chemical  action  ?  Certainly,  if  we 
regard  human  action  as  merely  physiological.  But  it 
is  just  at  this  point  that  the  analogy  breaks  down. 
Every  human  action  is  so  complicated  by  its  varied 
relations,  and  is  reinforced,  modified  or  it  may  be 
neutralized  by  the  interplay  of  the  clashing  or  co- 
operating forces  in  its  environment,  as  to  render  its 
consequences  in  many  instances  completely  indefinite 
and  incalculable. 

The  author  concedes  the  fact  that  in  the  present 
existence  justice  is  incomplete,  but  insists  that  our 
life  here  is  but  a  broken  part  of  a  broader  life,  and 
in  a  future  state  all  inequalities  will  be  righted  and 
a  true  balance  struck.  If,  however,  his  analogy  has 
any  force  as  an  argument,  there  should  be  observed 
[     >69     ] 


BALANCE 


in  human  affairs,  even  in  this  present  life,  a  com- 
pensation corresponding  to  the  balance  observable 
among  physical  phenomena,  and,  if  his  analogy  has 
no  force,  then  there  is  nothing  in  the  uniformity  of 
Nature  which  proves  that  the  breach  of  uniformity 
as  regards  distributive  justice  in  this  present  life  will 
be  compensated  in  a  life  to  come.  What  is  proved 
is  this  —  that  in  the  physical  and  the  psychical  we 
have  two  sets  of  radically  disparate  phenomena. 
The  justification  of  the  one  cannot  turn  upon  an 
analogy  with  the  other.  While  in  thorough  accord 
with  the  author's  conclusions  —  that  man  is  account- 
able for  his  actions,  and  that  in  a  future  life  eternal 
justice  will  be  vindicated  —  nevertheless  we  must 
dissent  from  the  method  of  reaching  these  conclu- 
sions. We  insist  that  the  basis  for  such  a  belief  is 
not  physical,  but  metaphysical,  and  that  it  is  not  the 
world  without,  but  the  world  within,  which  justifies 
such  a  creed. 


Princeton,  N.  J., 
June  3,  1904. 


By  WILLIAM  HENRY  SCOTT,  LL.  D. 

Professor  of  Philosophy,  Ohio  State  University. 

The   author  has  seized   a  great  truth   and  has 
traced  its  operation  in  the  physical,  the  intellectual, 
[     '70     ] 


APPENDIX 


the  social,  the  moral  and  the  religious  domains  of 
thought.  His  book  is  not  without  its  faults,  but  its 
main  positions  are  impregnable. 

1.  Balance  is,  as  he  affirms,  the  central  idea  of 
science.  The  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy, 
recognized  as  the  broadest  generalization  of  scien- 
tific thought,  is  only  a  deeper  interpretation  of  New- 
ton's third  law  of  motion.  It  means  that,  whatever 
changes  of  form  energy  may  undergo,  and  whether 
it  is  expressed  in  motion  or  in  some  other  way,  the 
total  amount  of  it  is  always  absolutely  the  same.  Mr. 
Smith's  discussion  of  the  law  of  balance  in  the  realm 
of  material  nature  is  intelligent  and  comprehensive 
and  abounds  in  apt  illustration. 

2.  Balance  is  also  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
moral  world.  Right  infallibly  brings  its  rewards. 
Wrong  infallibly  brings  its  retributions.  These  re- 
wards and  retributions  are  constantly  being  capital- 
ized in  the  nature  of  the  agent.  In  ultimate  analysis 
the  reactions  upon  himself  are  the  only  moral  conse- 
quences of  his  conduct,  and  the  reactions  that  count 
in  the  moral  calculus  appear  in  his  powers  and  tend- 
encies. They  make  him  stronger  or  weaker,  better 
or  worse,  in  some  of  his  inclinations,  desires,  capaci- 
ties or  purposes.  This  result  is  inevitable.  It  is  also 
immediate.  There  is  no  waiting  for  the  dawn  of 
another  life.   The  effect  begins  at  the  moment  the 

[     '71     ] 


BALANCE 

cause  begins.  And  it  abides.  It  cannot  be  undone. 
The  agent  can  never  be  again  what  he  was  before 
his  act  or  what  he  would  have  been  if  he  had  not 
performed  it.  More  than  that,  the  effect  becomes 
itself  a  cause  and  forever  tends  to  work  in  its  own 
direction  —  for  good  if  it  be  good,  for  evil  if  it  be 
evil.  The  balance  is  never  lost.  It  is  preserved  with- 
out failure  in  a  single  instance  and  without  interrup- 
tion for  a  single  moment.  As  the  author  puts  it, 
"  No  sound  philosophy  can  concede  that  a  law  of 
Nature  can  be  out  of  balance  "  (p.  91). 

Why,  then,  a  future  life?  Not  to  repay  present 
suffering  with  future  happiness,  as  the  author  holds 
(chap.  xii).  That  is  a  minor  consideration  which  is 
absorbed  in  the  essential  ones.  These  are,  first,  that 
the  most  precious  outcome  of  the  universe  may  not 
perish.  A  moral  being  is  the  most  consummate  fruit 
of  the  constitution  and  course  of  things.  That  it 
should  be  blighted  and  destroyed  seems  irrational. 
That  it  should  go  on,  fulfilling  itself  more  and  more 
completely,  seems  the  demand  of  both  justice  and 
reason.  Again,  a  future  life  is  needful  in  order  that 
the  process  of  moral  compensation  may  not  be  left 
incomplete.  The  moral  life  is  a  continuous  and 
cumulative  series  of  fulfillments,  or,  as  I  said  before, 
moral  rewards  and  retributions  are  constantly  being 
capitalized  in  the  nature  of  the  agent.   But  if  death 

[     »72     ] 


APPENDIX 


ends  all  it  truncates  the  moral  life.  It  brings  that  life 
to  a  sudden  and  final  stop.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
future  state  of  existence  provides  for  the  just  and 
natural  continuance  of  the  processes  of  moral  action 
and  reaction  and  for  the  conservation  of  all  moral 
forces,  moral  tendencies  and  moral  results. 

This  view  vindicates  the  author's  position  that 
moral  accountability  extends  into  a  future  life,  and 
vindicates  it  on  higher  ground  than  he  assumes,  and 
yet  in  closest  agreement  with  his  principle  that  bal- 
ance is  the  fundamental  verity. 

3.  From  all  that  I  have  said  it  follows  that  Mr. 
Smith  is  wholly  right  in  his  conclusion  that  one 
law,  the  invariable  law  of  equipoise,  pervades  both 
the  physical  and  the  moral  universe.  Balance  runs 
through  all.  Below,  above,  here  and  everywhere,  now 
and  always,  there  is  "one  sole  ruler —  God ;  one  sole 
rule  —  His  law  ;  one  sole  interpreter  of  that  law  — 
humanity : " 

"  One  God,  one  law,  one  element 
And  one  far-off  divine  event 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves." 


Columbus,  O., 
June  30,  1904. 


[     ^73     ] 


BALANCE 


By  EVANDER  B.  McGILVARY,  PH.  D. 

Sage  Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy,  Cornell  University. 

The  main  thesis  of  this  book  is  that  "balance 
rules  the  world  "  (p.  22).  In  order,  however,  to  give 
balance  this  supreme  place,  the  author  is  compelled 
to  use  the  word  in  a  sense  that  differs  widely  from 
the  usual  meaning  of  the  term.  Balance  properly 
means  a  state  in  which  the  forces  tending  to  move  a 
body  in  opposite  directions  are  equal,  so  that  no 
motion  results.  But  when  the  author  says  that  "  bal- 
ance rules  the  world  "  he  means  that  if  the  opposing 
forces  are  not  equal  a  process  is  set  up  which  tends 
to  restore  the  balance  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
word.  He  himself  uses  the  term  in  the  ordinary 
sense,  as  when  he  tells  us  that  "  a  man  out  of  bal- 
ance falls."  This  ambiguity  of  the  term  vitiates  his 
whole  ethical  argument.  Let  us  place  two  passages 
side  by  side :  "  Man  cannot  defy  balance.  His  acts 
must  produce  equivalent  consequences  "  (p.  85). 
"Justice,  which  is  balance  in  human  affairs,  is  in- 
complete in  this  life  "  (p.  92).  The  former  statement 
is  correct  only  when  balance  is  used  in  the  extraor- 
dinary sense  that  the  author  often  gives  it.  The 
latter  statement  can  be  justified  only  if  balance  is 
used  in  its  ordinary  sense.  In  the  other  sense  there 
[     »74    ] 


APPENDIX 


is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  balance  is  not  attained 
this  side  the  grave.  Take  the  case  of  the  man 
who  "  dies  in  the  commission  of  a  crime,"  and  who, 
if  death  ends  all,  "suffers  no  consequences  of  his 
sin  "  (p.  142).  If  balance  requires — as  perhaps  it 
might  should  the  word  in  its  strict  sense  be  turned 
into  a  metaphor  —  that  like  harm  be  done  to  him,  so 
that  the  conflicting  evils  shall  compensate  each  other, 
then,  unless  he  continues  to  live  after  death,  balance 
is  defeated.  But  if  balance  requires  —  as  it  should 
in  the  author's  special  meaning  of  the  term  —  that 
the  criminal's  deed  should  create  a  different  situa- 
tion, which  changes  the  history  of  the  world  to  the 
end  of  time,  then  it  is  not  true  that  balance  is  de- 
feated. He  does  not  reap  in  his  own  person  the  con- 
sequences of  his  act,  but  neither  does  the  falling 
body  reap  in  its  own  circumference  the  full  conse- 
quences of  its  fall  when  that  fall  is  arrested.  The 
resisting  body  gets  some  of  the  heat  thus  generated, 
and  so  does  the  surrounding  air.  The  author's  special 
balance  is  made  good,  not  in  the  body  itself,  but  in 
the  whole  system  in  which  the  event  occurs.  If  the 
physicist  in  studying  this  phenomenon  were  to  say 
after  measuring  the  heat  of  the  arrested  body,  "  I  do 
not  find  here  full  compensation  for  the  arrested  mo- 
tion ;  hence  let  us  wait  till  the  next  world,  and  then 
we  shall  find  the  deficiency  made  good,"  he  would  be 
[     »75     ] 


BALANCE 


proceeding  as  our  author  proceeds  when,  failing  to 
find  that  the  criminal  suffers  here  the  consequences 
of  his  sin,  he  tells  us  that  "  there  shall  come  a  day  of 
reckoning  for  the  tyrant  and  the  torturer  "  (p.  143). 

Ithaca,  N.  Y., 
May  30,  1904. 

By  GARRETT  P.   SERVISS. 
Author  of ''  Other  Worlds;'  etc. 

It  is  a  recommendation,  not  a  condemnation,  of  this 
little  book  to  say  that  its  germ  is  to  be  found  in 
Emerson's  essay  on  "  Compensation  "  and  in  his  two 
short  poems  on  the  same  subject.  A  dilution  of  Emer- 
son is  often  an  advantage,  and  Mr.  Smith,  who  writes 
with  notable  clearness  and  simplicity,  will  no  doubt 
appeal  to  many  readers  who  would  find  Emerson 
more  difficult. 

Besides,  this  author  has  his  own  point  of  observa- 
tion, as  every  author  worth  attending  to  must  have, 
even  when  he  builds  on  old  foundations.  The  chief 
novelty  in  Mr.  Smith's  book  —  and  he  has  packed  it 
full  of  suggestiveness  —  is  the  development  of  the 
idea  that  religion  is  the  counterpart  of  science  in  that 
it  extends  the  principle  of  compensation,  or  equiva- 
lence —  or,  as  he  likes  better  to  say,  balance  —  from 
the  physical  into  the  spiritual  world  and  from  things 
[     ^76     ] 


APPENDIX 


temporal  to  things  eternal.  In  fact,  the  idea  of  "  eter- 
nalism  "  as  a  theory  of  infinite  justice,  which  he  has 
developed  in  another  book,  underlies  this  one  also. 

It  seems  probable  that  many  readers  may  rise  from 
a  thoughtful  perusal  of  this  book  with  new  grounds 
of  hope  in  their  minds  for  the  survival  of  human  per- 
sonality after  death.  They  will  feel  more  or  less 
definitely  that  a  scientific  basis  for  belief  in  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  has  been  offered  to  them.  The 
inequalities  and  injustices  of  this  world  are  so  many 
adverse  falls  of  the  dice  of  fate ;  but,  inasmuch  as 
those  dice  are  not  loaded,  although  some  victims  of 
merciless  misfortune  may  believe  that  they  are,  all 
that  is  required  for  ultimate  readjustment  and  com- 
plete restoration  of  balance  is  indefinite  extension  of 
the  play.  The  great  law  of  probabilities  must  vin- 
dicate itself  in  infinite  time.  The  chances  must  all 
balance  up  in  the  end. 

Our  author  is  unquestionably  right  in  maintaining 
that  physical  science  knows  no  violation  of  the  law 
of  equivalence  and  cannot  even  conceive  of  such  vio- 
lation. In  everything  that  science  deals  with,  begin- 
ning with  Newton's  great  law  that  to  every  action 
there  is  an  equal  and  opposite  reaction,  the  account, 
as  Mr.  Smith  says,  balances  perfectly.  "  Nature  has 
no  profit  and  loss  account,  no  bad  debts,  no  failures 
in  compensation." 

[     ^11     ] 


BALANCE 


I  think  that  he  is  also  right  in  his  next  step,  wherein 
he  affirms  that  the  perfect  equivalence  of  action  and 
reaction  is  as  easily  discernible  in  the  moral  as  in  the 
physical  world.  This  is  something  more  than  the 
asseveration  of  a  truism.  We  are  to  take  the  state- 
ment as  representing  an  experience  as  real  as  that  of 
an  experiment  in  chemistry.  There  is  no  break.  The 
continuity  of  the  great  law  is  perfect.  It  runs  straight 
through  the  material  into  the  immaterial  (or  what  we 
call  the  immaterial)  universe. 

This  being  granted,  we  must  follow  Mr.  Smith  in 
his  next  conclusion,  which  is  that  religion  and  science 
meet  on  a  common  ground,  both  being  based  upon 
the  ceaselessness  of  cause  and  effect.  "  If  death  ends 
all,  then  the  individual  reaches  in  extinction  a  point 
where  moral  effect  fails  to  follow  moral  cause,"  a  re- 
sult as  repugnant  to  scientific  as  to  religious  thought. 

This  is  a  good  book  to  ponder  over. 
Brooklyn, 
June  22,  1904. 

By  ROBERT    MACDOUGALL,  PH.  D. 

Professor  of  Descriptive  Psychology^  New  York 
University. 

In   his   essay  on    "  Balance :    The   Fundamental 
Verity,"  Mr.  Smith  approaches  an  ancient  and  baffling 
[     »78     ] 


APPENDIX 


problem  —  namely,  the  attempt  to  state  the  whole 
range  of  our  experience  in  terms  of  a  single  funda- 
mental law,  a  law,  therefore,  which  shall  give  expres- 
sion to  our  most  complex  social  relations  and  to  our 
highest  aspirations  and  desires,  as  well  as  to  the 
physical  processes  of  life  and  to  the  facts  of  the  in- 
organic world. 

His  starting  point  is  the  incontrovertible  scientific 
doctrine  of  conservation  —  that  no  atom  of  force  is 
dissipated,  but  only  subjected  to  continuous  transfor- 
mation within  a  constant  total.  This  maxim  —  that 
action  and  reaction  are  equal  and  opposite  —  he  ap- 
plies to  the  interpretation  of  social  and  religious 
phenomena. in  a  series  of  interesting  and  readable 
chapters.  In  its  complex  forms,  especially  in  relation 
to  spiritual  realities,  this  principle  is  more  commonly 
called  the  law  of  compensation,  but  the  author  has 
preferred  the  more  novel  mode  of  stating  the  higher 
human  attributes  in  terms  of  physical  law,  in  a  way 
which  recalls  the  earlier  volume  of  Drummond. 

The  title  of  the  work,  however,  is,  in  a  way,  a  mis- 
nomer. It  is  not  balance,  but  balance  tempered  with 
optimism.  This  is  involved  in  the  very  statement 
that  it  is  an  attempt  to  mediate  between  the  concepts 
of  science  and  the  object  of  ethical  and  religious 
consciousness.  Man's  hope  tips  the  scale  in  the 
direction  of  his  ideal  desires,  and  this  passionate 
[     '79     ] 


BALANCE 


aspiration  is  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  of  a  dead  and 
literal  balance.  Place  must  be  made  for  progress,  for 
evolutionary  change,  involving  a  constant  passage 
from  lower  to  higher  forms,  for,  not  by  accident  nor 
convention,  but  as  an  inevitable  function  of  his  own 
nature,  man  conceives  of  an  ideal  purpose  in  the 
world,  the  existence  of  which  must  lead  to  a  complete 
restatement  of  the  problem  of  balance.  "  Nothing 
is  settled  till  it  is  settled  aright,"  says  the  author. 
"  The  good  days  outnumber  the  bad  ones."  "  Right 
rules  the  world."  These  sayings  are  inconsistent 
with  any  balance  discoverable  in  the  actual  world. 
They  are  comprehensible  only  under  the  concept  of 
a  life  larger  than  that  which  we  are  now  living,  with 
which  the  present  is  continuous.  In  other  words,  if 
the  author  is  right  at  all  in  assuming  this  idea  as  his 
starting  point  —  and  it  is  the  one  universal  law  of 
the  physical  world  —  its  application  means  that  every 
human  hope  must  find  an  ultimate  fulfillment  in  the 
summing  up  of  reality,  and  that  Nature  itself  cries 
out  against  the  nihilism  of  death. 

The  most  striking  discussions  of  the  book  are  those 
in  which  the  writer  analyzes  the  nature  of  religion 
and  of  the  hope  of  immortality.  The  moral  account- 
ability of  the  soul  is  defended  as  the  fundamental 
fact  of  religion,  in  opposition  to  the  point  of  view 
which  makes  its  essence  consist  in  the  belief  in  su- 
[     >8o     ] 


APPENDIX 


per  natural  beings,  or  a  future  life.  These  are  but 
the  necessary  results  of  a  logical  working  out  of  the 
former  concept.  In  the  second  discussion  the  author 
points  out  that  the  heart  of  our  desire  for  a  future 
life  does  not  lie  in  the  craving  for  a  continued  exist- 
ence, but  in  the  idea  of  recompense. 

His  position  seems  unassailable  on  both  these 
points.  We  seek  a  completeness  in  the  purposes  of 
the  will  which  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in  this  world. 
Human  life  is,  as  our  author  says,  an  act,  not  a  drama 
—  a  set  of  beginnings  which  lack  their  finales.  But 
such  a  life  is  essentially  unsatisfactory  and  horrible. 
We  demand  that  there  shall  somewhere  be  found 
dramatic  unity  in  the  world  of  human  purpose  and 
action.  But  this  completeness,  which  can  be  mani- 
fested only  in  an  existence  which  contains  the  recip- 
rocal of  every  element,  stubbornly  refuses  to  appear 
within  the  limits  of  our  present  life,  and  our  impet- 
uous imagination  leaps  the  chasm  of  death  and  in 
the  bounds  of  a  future  existence  constructs  the  ideal 
of  a  perfect  recompense.^ 

The  book,  which  stimulates  much  thought,  is  per- 
vaded by  a  transparent  sincerity  of  purpose  and  char- 
acterized by  a  pleasing  candor  of  statement. 

Sedgwick  Park,  New  York  City, 
May  21,  1904. 


[      '81      ] 


BALANCE 

By  charlotte  PERKINS   OILMAN. 
Author  of  ''In  This  Our  World,''  etc. 

"  The  law  of  compensation,"  of  "  returns,"  of 
"  equivalents,"  has  always  appealed  to  philosophers, 
and  its  application  to  human  life  is  no  new  one.  But 
Mr.  Smith  claims  for  this  law  absolute  preeminence. 
It  is  to  him  the  law  of  the  universe. 

His  book  is  short,  clearly  and  strongly  put,  and  so 
full  of  truths  —  patent,  visible,  unquestioned  truths 
—  that  one  has  to  think  very  steadily  in  order  to  dis- 
tinguish between  these  truths  and  the  truth. 

The  author  is  seeking  to  establish  the  perfect  jus- 
tice and  inevitability  of  post-mortem  retribution ; 
that  the  soul  is  accountable  for  its  actions  and  surely 
meets  its  reward ;  that  as  it  visibly  does  not  meet 
this  reward  on  earth  it  must,  according  to  this  uni- 
versal law  of  compensation,  meet  it  elsewhere. 

On  page  6  is  a  typical  instance  which  shows  as 
well  as  any  how  a  statement  may  be  true  and  yet  not 
prove  what  it  is  meant  to. 

Here  we  find  :  "  Excess  can  exist  only  through  a 
corresponding  deficiency,  and  a  deficiency  can  exist 
only  through  a  corresponding  excess.  A  deficiency 
in  crops  is  balanced  by  an  excess  in  prices ;  an  ex- 
cess in  crops  is  balanced  by  a  deficiency  in  prices." 

[      '8^     ] 


APPENDIX 


This  "  balance "  presupposes  a  market,  which 
Nature  does  not  always  provide.  It  involves  other 
conditions  not  assured.  One  might  say  that  a  de- 
ficiency in  crops  was  "  balanced  "  by  a  famine.  A 
consequence  is  not  the  same  thing  as  a  return. 

In  chapter  vi,  on  the  force  of  *'  action  and  reac- 
tion in  human  affairs,"  the  author,  in  proving  this 
position,  weakens  the  claim  for  a  further  reaction  on 
the  individual  after  death.  He  quotes  from  various 
authors,  citing  historic  instances  to  show  that  acts  of 
cruelty  and  wrong  produce  an  equal  reaction  in  later 
days ;  that  the  French  aristocracy  caused  the  Revo- 
lution, and  Napoleon  resulted  in  Waterloo.  Now, 
if  the  evil  acts  of  human  beings  have  their  inevitable 
reactions  here,  is  it  then  claimed  that  they  have  other 
and  different  reactions  afterward  ? 

Do  they  react  twice  —  first  in  their  visible  conse- 
quences upon  other  persons,  then  in  invisible  con- 
sequences to  the  same  persons  ?  That  every  act  has 
its  result,  or,  rather,  that  every  act  is  part  of  an 
endless  series  of  transmissions  of  energy,  is  clear 
enough,  but  that  the  consequent  effects  come  back 
to  each  individual  is  another  matter  altogether. 

Much  stress  is  laid  by  the  author  on  the  prevalent 

religious  beliefs  of  extremely  primitive  savages,  as 

if  what  the  lowest  and  most  ignorant  human  beings 

commonly  believed  was  therefore  more  likely  to  be 

[     ^83     ] 


BALANCE 


true.  That  cave  men  believed  in  ghosts  and  a  future 
life  does  not  seem  to  prove  these  things  anymore  than 
their  beliefs  about  the  facts  of  Nature  prove  those. 

Men  grow  wiser  with  social  evolution,  and  the  very 
existence  of  such  a  book  as  this,  the  need  for  elab- 
orate argument  based  on  science  to  establish  what 
our  hairy  ancestors  accepted  undoubtingly,  shows 
that  the  mind  of  to-day  does  not  agree  with  that  of 
the  remote  past. 

The  fundamental  verity  of  universal  right  may  be 
held  without  this  very  ancient  theory  of  personal 
retribution  after  death. 


New  York, 

May  i8,  1904. 


By  JACOB   VOORSANGER,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures,  Uni- 
versity of  California. 

I  have  read  "  Balance  "  with  the  greatest  interest 
and  gratification.  The  author  is  right  in  his  conclu- 
sion that  compensation  is  fundamental  in  Nature, 
physical  and  moral.  Nature  rewards  and  revenges. 
She  is  kind  to  her  lovers,  stern  to  her  abusers.  She 
has  a  blessing  for  every  ill,  an  ill  for  every  blessing. 
She  has  ice  and  snow  for  heat,  and  she  has  the  cool- 
ing leaves  of  Ceylon  for  defense  against  the  tropics. 
[     184     ] 


APPENDIX 


She  has  poison  and  its  antidote,  illness  and  its  cure, 
life  and  death,  as  we  use  the  words,  both  cognate 
expressions  of  the  law  of  compensation  that  equi- 
librates all  things  in  existence. 

Moral  accountability  is  founded  in  religion.  It  is, 
in  fact,  the  basis  of  religion.  Deity  and  divinity,  the 
source  of  perfection  and  holiness,  cannot  be  con- 
ceived without  an  accompanying  sense  of  responsi- 
bility and  accountability.  Unless  we  judge  our  acts 
by  the  divine  standard,  and  so  struggle  for  holiness, 
God  is  only  an  abstraction  with  which  we  could  dis- 
pense. On  these  subjects  the  views  of  religion  and 
science  are  identical. 


San  Francisco, 
June  26,  1904. 


By  GEORGE  WILLIAM   KNOX,    D.  D. 

Professor  of  Philosophy  and  History  of  Religion,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

This  volume  belongs  to  the  literature  of  inspiration 
and  not  of  science.  It  will  have  the  larger  reading 
and  possibly  the  larger  results.  It  appeals  primarily 
to  the  emotions  and  should  not  be  submitted  to  the 
cool  judgment  of  the  intellect.  It  is,  in  fact,  an  ex- 
pansion of  the  thought  already  set  forth  in  Emerson's 
essay  on  "  Compensation." 

[     '85     ] 


BALANCE 

Its  proposition  that  "balance  is  the  fundamental 
verity  "  belongs  to  a  region  incapable  of  proof.  As 
our  author  illustrates,  it  may  be  set  forth  in  varying 
forms :  "  To  every  action  there  is  an  equal  and  op- 
posite reaction ; "  "  Effects  follow  causes  in  unbroken 
succession ; "  "  Matter  is  indestructible ; "  "  Force  is 
persistent  and  indestructible  ;"  etc.  In  other  forms 
so  Plato  perceived,  and  so  before  Plato  the  Hindus 
declared,  deducing  from  it  the  law  of  Karma  as  the 
one  unchanging  reality  in  the  phenomenal  world. 
On  this  various  cosmogonies  have  been  reared,  many 
of  them,  like  our  author's  work,  largely  rhetorical 
and  sometimes  fanciful. 

These  cosmogonies  are  simply  the  principle  of 
causality  objectified.  That  principle  is  not  deduced 
from  the  phenomena  of  Nature,  but  is  an  a  priori 
judgment  of  the  mind  itself,  and  therefore  is  uni- 
versal and  necessary.  It  is  partly  verified  in  expe- 
rience, but  science  is  unable  to  verify  it  absolutely. 
In  all  scientific  experiment  there  is  a  residuum 
which  is  unaccounted  for,  and  yet  none  supposes 
that  the  principle  itself  does  not  hold,  but  the  neces- 
sary activity  of  the  mind  forces  us  to  believe  that 
what  the  laboratory  cannot  reveal  still  exists,  and 
that  were  our  processes  more  exact  the  infinitesimals 
themselves  would  conform  to  this  judgment  of  the 
mind. 

[     186    ] 


APPENDIX 


But  such  a  judgment  cannot  be  set  forth  as  the 
fundamental  verity.  It  is  one  among  others,  and  it 
holds  no  primacy  over  the  other  a  priori  judgments, 
for  from  this  point  of  view  the  fundamental  verity  is 
not  this  judgment  nor  that,  but  ourselves,  our  ex- 
perience, our  consciousness.  To  science,  however, 
the  causal  judgment  is  fundamental,  not  as  an  onto- 
logical  entity,  but  as  a  principle  to  be  applied  by 
rigid  experiment  to  concrete  facts.  The  principle  was 
held  long  before  modern  science  achieved  its  tri- 
umphs, but  it  added  relatively  little  to  the  sum  of 
human  knowledge,  and  in  the  form  taught  by  Plato 
or  embodied  in  Karma  it  was  an  obstacle,  for  it 
substituted  analogies  for  careful  deduction. 

Deduction  shows  an  antecedent  for  every  con- 
sequent and  is  contented  only  when  all  the  ante- 
cedents can  be  detected  and  verified.  Analogy, 
unable  to  show  the  antecedents  or  to  determine 
them,  is  content  with  likenesses.  Thus  Karma,  by 
analogy,  argued  that  our  existence  now  is  the  prod- 
uct of  former  conscious  existences,  but  it  never 
even  attempted  to  prove  its  assertion.  It  was  a 
mere  assertion  and  worthless.  As  well  might  one 
argue  that  the  explosion  which  follows  the  appli- 
cation of  heat  to  gunpowder  is  the  outcome  of  pre- 
vious explosions. 

In  like  manner,  the  attempt  to  prove  from  this 
[     ^87     ] 


BALANCE 


principle  that  there  is  a  continuance  of  our  conscious 
existence  after  death  fails.  As  readily  does  it  prove 
our  preexistence,  as  the  Hindus  clearly  saw. 

None  the  less,  Kant,  who  most  clearly  set  forth 
causality  as  an  a  priori  judgment  of  the  mind,  also 
argued  for  immortality  somewhat  on  the  lines  of  this 
book.  Doubtless  to  many  it  is  the  most  convincing 
line  of  reasoning.  But  in  our  judgment  something 
more  is  needed  to  establish  so  great  a  conclusion. 
As  Mr.  Smith  points  out,  the  belief  in  immortality  is 
so  widespread  that  it  may  be  counted  among  the  in- 
stincts of  the  race,  and  as  such  it  may  be  trusted  as 
readily  as  the  principle  of  causality  itself,  and,  like 
that  principle,  can  find  much  to  justify  it  in  the  phe- 
nomenal world. 

The  statements  concerning  the  fundamental  agree- 
ments of  science  and  religion  are  in  accordance  with 
the  insight  of  our  time.  Doubtless  we  come  to  this 
conclusion  in  different  ways,  but  the  signs  are  many 
that  the  warfare  is  at  an  end  among  thinking  men. 
Science  seeks  truth,  and  religion  trusts  it  as  that 
which  is  worthy  of  our  search.  Science  believes  that 
truth  is  better  than  all  dreams,  and  religion  adores 
and  worships  that  which,  in  the  deepest  sense,  is.  If 
between  our  formulations  of  religious  faith  and  the 
discoveries  of  scientific  research  there  are  disagree- 
ments, neither  shall  revile  the  other ;  but  both,  alike 
[     »88     ] 


APPENDIX 


devoted  to  truth  only,  shall  seek  its  higher  form,  in 
which  our  perplexities  and  our  doubts  and  our  con- 
tradictions shall  be  all  resolved. 

The  book  in  its  purpose,  its  high  conception  of 
morality  and  its  religious  faith  is  to  be  commended, 
and  doubtless  will  help  many  persons  to  a  higher 
conception  of  life. 

New  York, 

May  26,  1904. 

By  GEORGE  BARKER  STEVENS,  LL.  D. 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University. 

This  book  might  be  described  as  the  philosophical 
counterpart  of  Emerson's  essay  on  "  Compensation." 
Its  central  idea  is  that  balance,  equivalence,  action 
and  reaction,  causation  and  consequence,  are  univer- 
sal and  invariable  laws.  This  idea  is  forcibly  stated 
and  strikingly  illustrated  in  a  great  variety  of  ways. 
To  the  present  writer  the  author  seems  to  have  made 
good  his  main  contentions  —  that  science  and  phi- 
losophy point  distinctly  to  the  universality  of  the  law 
of  compensation  and  equivalence ;  that  religion  rests 
upon  the  assumption,  or  necessary  conviction,  that 
this  law  will  be  found  to  hold  and  apply  continuously, 
and  that  it  will  yet  assert  and  vindicate  itself  per- 
fectly, and  that  the  religious  maxim,  "  Whatsoever  a 
[     '89     ] 


BALANCE 

man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap,"  is  equally  a 
truth  of  science  and  of  universal  experience. 

The  object  of  the  discussion  is  to  show  the  con- 
gruity,  at  this  fundamental  point,  of  science  and 
religion,  and  the  work  is  a  real  contribution  to  that 
end.  My  principal  criticism  would  be  that  Mr.  Smith 
presents  his  points  in  too  abstract  a  form.  Take, 
in  illustration,  the  title  of  the  book,  "  Balance  :  The 
Fundamental  Verity."  Now,  balance,  interaction, 
compensation  and  all  such  words  express  only  the 
idea  of  certain  relations  among  realities  and  not  the 
notion  of  entities  or  "  fundamental  verities  "  them- 
selves. So,  when  it  is  said  that  "  right  "  or  "  law  " 
rules  the  world,  abstractions  are  hypostatized  and 
made  to  do  duty  as  if  they  were  personal  powers. 
Law  is  only  a  method  in  which  some  Being  or  Power 
acts,  and  not  itself  a  Being  or  Power,  or  "  funda- 
mental verity."  It  may  be  that  Mr.  Smith  would  ad- 
mit all  this,  for  in  a  few  places  he  uses  the  language 
of  theism,  as  when  he  speaks  of  Nature  as  "  the  book 
of  God  "  (p.  133),  of  "God's  justice  "  and  "  favor" 
(pp.  133,  134).  But  this  language  is  rather  excep- 
tional, and  the  author's  earlier  work,  "  Eternalism," 
defined  God  as  "  the  idealization  of  each  soul's  con- 
ception of  Divine  Order,  Rightness,  Justice  "  —  that 
is,  it  seemed  to  stop  short  of  the  assertion  of  a  be- 
lief in  the  divine  Personality.  With  this  stricture 
[     '90     ] 


APPENDIX 


upon  the  vagueness  of  the  treatment  upon  the  crucial 
point  as  to  the  real  nature,  personal  or  impersonal, 
of  the  "  fundamental  verity,"  I  would  accord  to  the 
book  a  high  character  for  seriousness,  vigor  and  im- 
pressiveness. 

New  Haven,  Conn., 
May  21,  1904. 

By  GEORGE  B.  STEWART,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 
President  of  Auburn  Theological  Seminary. 

The  subject  of  this  inquiry  is  "  whether  the  return 
of  equivalence  and  compensation  is  not  fundamental 
in  Nature,  alike  in  physics  and  in  the  human  soul  — 
whether  the  rational  foundation  for  man's  hope  for 
a  future  life,  and  for  his  belief  in  the  rightness  of 
the  world-order,  should  not  be  sought  for  in  the  su- 
premacy of  equivalence  and  compensation  "  (p.  7). 

In  so  serious  an  inquiry  exactness  in  the  use  of 
terms  would  seem  to  be  a  prime  consideration,  and 
the  reader  asks  for  the  meaning  of  this  "balance" 
which  is  the  "fundamental  verity."  He  is  disap- 
pointed to  find  that  at  times  the  writer  speaks  of  it 
as  if  it  were  a  law  of  Nature,  as  gravitation ;  in  other 
places  as  if  it  were  a  tendency,  as  the  tendency  of 
an  August  sun  to  produce  a  sunstroke ;  again,  as  a 
force,  like  heat  or  light,  and  in  other  places  arouses 
[     '91     ] 


BALANCE 


the  suspicion  that  he  is  using  it  as  a  philosophical 
principle  or  a  scientific  hypothesis.  The  author  has 
the  true  Emersonian  disregard  (in  other  ways  he 
shows  the  influence  of  Emerson)  for  exactness  of 
definition,  which  is  scarcely  in  keeping  with  so  scien- 
tific an  essay. 

His  first  conclusion  is  that  scientific  experience 
and  the  higher  interpretations  of  Nature  point  dis- 
tinctly to  balance  as  the  one  fundamental  interpre- 
tation of  the  universe  in  which  man  is  an  integral 
part.  Concerning  this  conclusion  a  layman  in  science 
may  modestly  refrain  from  expressing  an  opinion,  but 
even  he  may  ask  a  question.  The  question  is,  "  Will 
science  admit  this  claim  for  this  principle,  law,  tend- 
ency or  force,  called  '  balance,'  as  the  *  fundamental 
verity '  in  the  natural  world  ?  "  and,  if  not,  then  what 
value  does  it  have  in  an  attempt  to  reconcile  science 
and  religion  ? 

A  second  conclusion  is  that  the  moral  accounta- 
bility of  the  soul,  extended  into  a  future  life,  is  the 
fundamental  verity  in  natural  religion.  To  reach  this 
conclusion  he  must  meet  certain  questions  that  men 
of  science  would  certainly  ask  on  the  one  hand,  and 
certain  other  questions  on  the  other  hand  that  men 
of  religion  must  ask.  Some  of  these  questions  he 
passes  in  silence,  and  others  he  can  scarcely  be  said 
satisfactorily  to  have  answered. 
[     192     ] 


APPENDIX 


But,  even  so,  the  most  that  can  be  claimed  for  his 
argument  is  that  this  accountability  is  but  one  of  the 
fundamental  verities  of  the  soul-life. 

His  final  conclusion  is  built  upon  the  two  pre- 
ceding. Having  established  balance  in  the  physical 
world  as  a  scientific  principle  or  law  or  force,  and  in 
the  moral  and  religious  world  as  a  principle  or  law 
or  force,  he  completes  his  argument  by  showing  the 
identity  of  these  two  laws  or  principles  or  forces. 
In  other  words,  he  concludes  that  Newton's  axiom, 
"  To  every  action  there  is  an  equal  reaction,"  is  the 
counterpart  of  the  religious  doctrine  of  just  conse- 
quences. He  sustains  his  contention  with  much  in- 
genuity and  many  illustrations.  But  his  argument  at 
its  best  shows  only  an  analogy  between  the  physical 
and  moral  balance,  and  identity  is  not  proved  by 
analogy. 

The  fatal  difficulty  with  this  final  conclusion,  even 
if  one  is  prepared  to  admit  his  previous  conclusions, 
which  are  essential  to  it,  is  that  it  ignores  the  differ- 
ence between  Nature  without  life  and  Nature  plus 
life,  and  between  Nature  plus  life  and  Nature  plus 
life  plus  will.  One  cannot  shake  off  the  feeling  that 
if  our  author  had  reckoned  with  these  plus  signs  his 
solution  of  the  problem  would  have  been  modified. 

The  author's  clearness  of  expression,  his  crisp  and 
sententious  style,  his  bold,  fearless,  frank  avowal  of 
[     '93     ] 


BALANCE 

his  convictions,  his  remarkable  skill  in  marshaling 
his  arguments,  go  far  toward  winning  an  audience 
for  his  original  thesis,  even  where  they  will  not  win 
assent.  He  has  made  an  honest  and  a  highly  inter- 
esting and  most  suggestive  contribution  to  an  impor- 
tant discussion  and  one  that  will  undoubtedly  carry 
conviction  to  many  minds. 
Auburn,  N.  Y., 
May  19,  1904. 

By  EDWARD   L.  CURTIS,  D.  D. 

Professor  in  Yale  Divinity  School. 

The  author  of  this  work,  already  favorably  known 
as  the  writer  of  "  Eternalism  :  A  Theory  of  Infinite 
Justice,"  seeks  in  this  volume  for  the  fundamental 
harmony  between  physical  science  and  religion.  That 
harmony  is  found  in  an  underlying  law  of  compensa- 
tion —  to  every  action  is  an  equal  and  opposite  re- 
action. 

In  the  physical  universe  this  is  seen  in  the  per- 
manency of  matter  and  force,  whose  forms  may 
change,  but  the  loss  of  every  old  form  is  compensated 
by  the  appearance  of  a  new  one.  Thus  the  physical 
universe  is  kept  in  a  state  of  equilibrium,  harmony 
or  law  by  the  constant  action  and  reaction  of  all  its 
elements,  and  the  underlying  principle  is  balance, 
[     '94     ] 


APPENDIX 


which  "  presides  over  the  processes  of  Nature  in  the 
small  as  well  as  the  large  —  alike  in  atoms,  satellites 
and  suns  —  and  that  every  transformation  of  matter 
and  force,  great  or  insignificant,  includes  the  return 
of  exact  equivalents  and  compensation." 

This  conclusion  is  in  accord  with  the  general  ver- 
dict of  modern  science,  but  it  is  here  stated  in  a 
fresh,  original  and  very  luminous  way.  The  author  is 
gifted  in  the  power  of  direct  and  logical  expression 
and  in  the  use  of  beautiful  and  appropriate  similes. 

In  mental  and  moral  phenomena  the  principle  of 
balance  is  found  operative  since  human  action  is  at- 
tended with  a  series  of  inevitable  consequences, 
which  may  be  called  reactions,  and  adjustments  are 
constantly  taking  place,  so  that  out  of  the  varied 
strifes  of  mankind  issues  at  last  the  triumph  of  the 
right.  This  is  realized  gradually  in  the  slow  progress 
of  historic  development,  and  yet  in  individual  expe- 
riences it  fails  of  perfect  accomplishment.  Justice, 
which  is  balance  in  human  affairs,  is  incomplete  in 
this  life,  and  hence  the  necessity  of  a  future  life. 

This  leads  our  author  to  consider  the  phenomena 
of  religion,  "the  oldest,  the  most  universal,  the  most 
permanent  of  the  institutions  of  men."  Here  are 
found  three  fundamental  beliefs —  "  (i)  that  the  soul 
is  accountable  for  its  actions  ;  (2)  that  the  soul  sur- 
vives the  death  of  the  body ;  (3)  in  a  supreme  power 
[     ^95     ] 


BALANCfe 

that  rights  things."  And  balance  is  manifested  in  re- 
wards and  punishments  meted  out  after  death. 

This  is  sound  and  true  doctrine,  and  the  argument 
is  clear  and  forcible,  and  the  conclusion  is  well  drawn 
that  religion  and  science  are  in  harmony,  not  in  con- 
flict, and  that  all  appearance  of  conflict  has  been  due 
to  the  misunderstanding  and  the  misinterpretation 
of  both  religion  and  science. 

Thus  with  the  general  trend  and  conclusion  of  this 
work  we  are  in  hearty  accord.  At  the  same  time  the 
writer  seems  to  fall  short  of  the  highest  truth.  His 
physical  universe  is  causeless.  His  "supreme  power 
that  rights  things  "  is  apparently  impersonal.  Want- 
ing is  the  Spirit  who  may  bring  men  to  a  better 
knowledge  of  themselves,  the  Redeemer  who  may 
right  the  wrongs  and  pay  the  dues  of  others,  a  free- 
dom of  Love  even  akin  to  that  seen  among  men. 

The  conception  of  a  living  personal  God  as  the 
ultimate  ground  of  all  things  cannot,  it  is  true,  be 
demonstrated  and  may  involve  apparent  contradic- 
tions, and  yet  this  theistic  view  of  the  universe  ap- 
pears to  us  more  rational  than  that  of  our  author, 
who  holds  the  eternal  existence  of  all  things  and 
beings  with  their  inherent  laws,  both  physical  and 
moral. 

New  Haven,  Conn., 
May  26,  1904. 

[     '96     ] 


APPENDIX 


By  WILLIAM   N.  CLARKE,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Christian  Theology,  Hamilton  Theological 
Seminary f  Colgate  University. 

1 .  I  am  no  expert  in  science ;  but,  so  far  as  I  un- 
derstand the  matter,  the  author  is  right  in  concluding 
that  "the  return  of  equivalence  and  compensation" 
is  the  law  in  Nature. 

2.  He  is  right  also  in  concluding  that  "  the  moral 
accountability  of  the  individual,  extended  into  the 
future  life,  is  fundamental  in  religion." 

3.  He  is  right  in  concluding  that  physical  action 
and  human  action  are  alike  ceaseless  and  compen- 
satory. The  axiom  of  the  physical  order  is  the  coun- 
terpart of  the  axiom  of  the  spiritual  order. 

Thus,  so  far  as  he  goes,  the  author  is  right.  I 
infer,  however,  that  the  law  thus  brought  out  is  of- 
fered as  sufficient  to  cover  the  ground  of  religion.  If 
I  am  right  in  this  interpretation,  I  must  add  that 
here  I  think  the  author  is  wrong.  Religion  seems  to 
me  to  include  more  than  the  recognition  of  a  univer- 
sal equal  and  righteous  order,  or,  if  by  some  means 
the  substance  of  all  religion  could  be  brought  under 
this  head,  there  is  need  of  a  great  body  of  exjjosition 
of  experience  for  which  this  book  appears  to  have  no 
room.  The  author  has  made  a  contribution  which  I 
[     '97     ] 


BALANCE 


welcome  as  highly  valuable,  but  feel  it  to  be  less 
complete  and  sufRcient  than  he  seems  to  consider  it. 
Hamilton,  N.  Y., 
May  30,  1904. 

By  ALEXANDER  B.  RIGGS,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  and  Interpreta- 
tion in  Lane  Theological  Seminary. 

I  do  not  think  the  author  has  found  the  harmoniz- 
ing principle  of  science  and  religion.  The  book  is 
interesting  reading  because  of  the  lucid  style  of  the 
writing  and  of  the  novel  method  of  putting  things. 
But  the  argument  is  sophistical  because  of  the  use 
of  the  word  "  balance  "  to  mean  so  many  different 
things  at  different  times  —  things  which  are  not  at 
all  alike  as  I  conceive  of  them. 

His  conclusions  are  defective  because  he  leaves 
no  room  in  his  scheme  of  thought  for  the  presence 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  greatest  and  most  potent  factor 
in  human  history,  nor  for  a  revelation  of  truth  and 
the  manifestation  of  a  Redeemer.  His  statement  of 
what  he  calls  Christianity  would  suit  very  well  the 
Unitarian  and  the  Universalist  views  of  Christianity, 
two  of  the  smallest  of  the  so-called  Christian  sects, 
but  it  is  very  wide  of  the  mark  as  describing  the 
views  of  the  great  mass  of  Christians,  both  Protest- 
[     ^98     ] 


APPENDIX 


ant  and  Catholic,  whether  Roman  or  Greek.  The  at- 
tempt to  sweep  aside  the  Protestant  view  with  a  single 
dip  of  his  pen  (in  the  words  on  page  134,  "  There 
are  many  which  teach  that  it  [the  law  of  conse- 
quences] can  be  evaded  —  that  the  favor  of  God  can 
be  gained  by  means  other  than  right-doing  ")  indi- 
cates an  entire  absence  of  appreciation  of  the  very 
element  in  true  Christianity  which  marks  it  off  by  a 
■wide  boundary  from  all  the  ethical  theories  of  reli- 
gion, and  consequently  from  all  the  ethnic  religions 
which  have  existed  or  which  still  exist.  The  gra- 
tuitous salvation  of  a  repentant  and  trustful  man, 
no  matter  what  has  been  his  past  record,  has  trans- 
formed so  many  lives  and  renovated  so  many  char- 
acters that  it  seems  strange  that  any  intelligent  man 
should  say,  as  the  author  does  in  the  last  sentence  of 
his  book,  "  The  consequences  of  human  action  are 
as  definite  as  the  consequences  of  chemical  action  ; 
that  the  laws  of  equivalence  and  compensation  which 
operate  in  the  realm  of  physics  act  with  the  same 
unfailing  certainty,  and  with  the  same  eternal  cease- 
lessness,  upon  the  soul  of  man."  The  aim  of  this 
argument  is  to  bring  the  life  of  free  moral  agents 
under  the  dominion  of  the  inexorable  laws  of  Na- 
ture, and  thus  find  the  unifying  principle  between 
science  and  religion  in  the  "eternal  ceaselessness  " 
with  which  Nature's  physical  laws  operate. 
[     '99     ] 


BALANCE 

This  would  indeed  be  the  sad  and  hopeless  condi- 
tion of  man  were  it  not  for  the  good  news  which  the 
Gospel  of  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ  intro- 
duced into  the  world  for  the  purpose  of  delivering 
mankind  from  such  hopelessness  under  law. 

As  an  interpretation  of  natural  religion  the  author's 
positions  and  his  argument  may  receive  acceptance 
with  a  certain  school  of  thinkers,  but  to  any  one 
who  with  wide-open  eyes  looks  about  him  and  sees 
what  the  Reformation  and  the  Protestant  doctrines 
of  an  open  Bible  and  Justification  by  Faith  in  Jesus 
Christ  have  wrought  in  the  world  the  book  will  not 
prove  satisfactory.  Science  will  become  reconciled 
to  religion  when  it  takes  into  account  and  properly 
weighs  the  facts  connected  with  religious  experience 
to  which  so  many  millions  of  human  beings  can 
enthusiastically  testify.  The  effects  of  the  presence 
in  the  world  of  the  revealed  Redeemer  and  of  His 
Gospel  message  after  such  a  scientific  investigation 
will  enter  into  the  accepted  conclusions  of  science, 
and  the  harmony  between  the  two  will  be  completed 
by  this  comprehension  of  all  religious  phenomena 
within  scientific,  but  not  naturalistic,  results. 

Cincinnati,  O., 
May  12,  1904. 


[      200     ] 


APPENDIX 


By  GOTTHARD   DEUTSCH,   PH.  D. 

Professor  afid  Acting  President  of  Hebrew  Union 
College,  Cincinnati,  O. 

Of  David  Friedrich  Strauss  it  is  told  that  a  few 
days  before  his  death  he  read  once  more  Plato's 
"Phaedon"  in  the  original,  and,  having  finished  it, 
he  laid  the  book  aside,  saying,  "  A  brilliant  piece  of 
work,  but  '  ein  ueberwundener  Standpunkt '  "  (an 
antiquated  view).  The  same  may  be  said  with  full 
justice  of  Mr.  Orlando  J.  Smith's  new  attempt  at 
apologetics,  Mr.  Smith  wants  to  do  what  innumer- 
able other  thinkers  have  done  in  centuries  past.  He 
wishes  to  prove  that  religion  and  science  are  com- 
patible, and  especially  that  the  belief  in  a  future  life 
has  not  only  not  been  contradicted  by  scientific  in- 
vestigation, but  has  rather  been  proven  by  it. 

His  chief  argument  is  that  Nature  suffers  no  ex- 
cess, constantly  creating  barriers  to  its  destructive 
powers — that  is,  proves  the  law  of  compensation, 
which  brings  about  the  equipoise  in  the  realm  of 
morality,  just  as  there  is  an  equipoise  in  the  material 
world. 

The  first  part  of  the  book,  in  which  the  facts  of 
Nature  proving  the  author's  theory  are  expounded, 
is  excellent.  The  author  has  a  great  deal  of  learn- 
[      20I      ] 


BALANCE 

ing,  wide  reading,  large  experience,  and,  above  all, 
a  brilliant  pen,  and  he  does  prove  that  "  balance 
rules  the  world."  The  great  question,  however,  is 
not  "  Does  balance  rule  the  world,  or  even  mankind 
in  general  ? "  but  "  Does  balance  rule  the  life  of  each 
individual  man  ?  "  True  it  is,  for  instance,  that  the 
sea,  in  creating  dunes  on  the  shore  of  Long  Island, 
has,  by  its  own  force,  created  a  barrier  against  de- 
struction. True  it  is  that  tyranny,  by  its  excesses, 
creates  for  itself  such  determined  enemies  that  it 
is  bound  to  succumb.  True  it  is  that  ecclesiastic 
narrowness  arrives  in  the  long  run  at  such  detest- 
able doctrines  that  its  revolted  followers  will  be 
driven  to  a  determined  and  successful  resistance. 
Thus  both  the  moral  and  the  physical  world  show 
the  truth  of  the  law  of  compensation  and  prove  that 
"balance  rules  the  world."  On  the  other  hand,  the 
individual  is  not  benefited  by  it.  While  Long  Island 
is  protected  by  the  sea,  other  shores  have  been 
washed  away,  islands  have  been  submerged,  and  the 
lives  lost  and  the  property  destroyed  by  the  tidal 
wave  at  Galveston,  September  9,  1900,  are  not  com- 
pensated by  the  dunes  of  Long  Island.  True  it  is 
that  the  ecclesiastic  tyranny  of  Gregory  VII.  and 
Innocent  III.  led  to  the  Reformation  and  finally  to 
the  principle  of  religious  toleration  inaugurated  by 
Spinoza  and  acknowledged  in  all  constitutions  since 
[     202     ] 


APPENDIX 


the  Declaration  of  Independence.  But  has  this  fact 
benefited  individually  the  hundreds  of  thousands 
burned  at  the  stake,  scourged  and  tortured,  robbed 
of  their  property  and  made  miserable  by  social  and 
political  ostracism,  all  on  account  of  their  religious 
belief  ? 

"Life  here,"  Mr.  Smith  says,  "is  neither  long 
enough  nor  broad  enough  to  establish  complete  com- 
pensation." This  would  prove  that  the  author  expects 
for  every  individual  life  a  compensation  in  the  here- 
after. He  would  find,  however,  that  this  general  view 
is  meaningless  unless  we  have  a  distinct  heaven  and 
a  distinct  hell,  and,  while  one  would  not  have  to 
arrive  at  the  great  sensuality  of  Mohammed's  para- 
dise or  at  the  lurid  hell  of  the  Jesuit  Suarez,  we  are 
bound  to  have  some  distinct  sentence  passed  on  every 
individual  soul  in  the  way  in  which  a  jury  or  an  indi- 
vidual judge  would  render  a  verdict.  This  theory 
does  not  become  more  rational  by  the  postulate  of 
moral  compensation.  This  postulate  no  one  denies, 
but  it  is  merely  a  wish,  and  a  wish  is  not  a  fact. 
Having  proven  in  this  one  instance  that  Mr.  Smith's 
conclusions  are  wrong,  we  have  to  State  that  even 
his  facts  are  not  always  correct.  One  of  his  argu- 
ments is  the  universality  of  religion.  Suppose  this 
were  true.  It  would  merely  prove  that  in  the  course 
of  history  religious  beliefs  were  the  necessary  evolu- 
[     203     ] 


BALANCE 

tion  of  a  certain  state  of  mind,  and  it  does  not  prove 
that  they  are  indispensable.  It  is,  however,  denied 
by  certain  scientists  that  the  universality  of  religion 
is  a  fact.  Nor  is  it  true  that  a  belief  in  life  after 
death  is  the  basis  of  all  religion,  as  Mr.  Smith  states 
on  the  authority  of  Grant  Allen,  and  the  best  proof 
to  the  contrary  is  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially 
the  books  of  Job  and  Ecclesiastes.  Job  xxi,  1-15, 
knows  no  answer  to  the  question  why  "  the  wicked 
live,  grow  old  — yea,  wax  mighty  in  power."  Nor  is 
Ecclesiastes  iii,  21,  convinced  that  the  "  spirit  of  man 
goeth  upward."  Judaism  has  not  held  merely  for  six 
hundred  years  or  so,  as  Mr.  Smith  says,  the  doctrine 
of  resurrection,  but  already  in  the  second  century 
B.  c,  as  Daniel  i,  22,  proves,  and  as  is  confirmed  by 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  xxii,  34,  where  the  Pharisees 
are  expressly  quoted  as  gratified  with  Jesus'  teach- 
ing of  this  doctrine.  We  have  further  a  clear  state- 
ment in  the  Talmud,  dating  back  to  the  first  century 
A.  D.,  which  emphasizes  the  belief  in  resurrection  as 
fundamental  in  Judaism.  If  such  is  the  case  with 
clear  historical  facts  proven  from  literature,  we  have  to 
be  very  careful  with  the  observations  made  by  travel- 
ers among  savages,  whose  language  is  undeveloped 
and  incompletely  known  and  who  are  very  reluctant 
in  talking  about  their  religious  beliefs. 
Cincinnati,  O.,  May  29,  1904. 

.     [     204     ] 


APPENDIX 


By  THOMAS  C.  HALL,  D.  D. 

Professor  in  Union  Theological  Seminary. 
It  is  a  sign  of  the  times  that  men  are  again  seeking 
along  philosophic  lines  an  answer  to  the  questions  of 
the  universe.  It  is  being  gradually  recognized  that 
simple  increase  in  the  acuteness  of  our  sensations 
will  never  give  us  the  fundamental  verity  in  which 
both  heart  and  mind  may  hope  to  rest.  Gone  indeed 
is  the  high  a  priorism  of  the  scholastic  period,  but 
the  need  for  a  generalization  at  once  so  definite  that 
it  can  be  tested  along  appropriate  lines  of  research 
and  yet  so  inclusive  that  the  natural  scientist  and 
the  philosophic  thinker  will  both  hail  it  as  worth 
their  tests,  is  felt  as  never  before.  The  author  of  the 
work  under  review  is  surely  right  in  teaching  that 
both  scientific  experience  and  the  philosophic  inter- 
pretations of  life  point  to  some  one  fundamental  in- 
terpretation. He  suggests  as  the  key  to  the  universe 
what  he  terms  **  balance  "  —  i.  e.  the  return  in  equiva- 
lence and  compensation  in  all  interactions  (pp.  6i- 
70).  Whether  his  doctrine  is  really  an  advance  upon 
the  dialectic  proposition  of  Hegel  may  be  doubted, 
but  he  puts  strikingly  and  in  sharp,  clear  English 
undisputed  truths  of  relation  and  readjustment  which 
must  not  only  be  constantly  reconsidered,  but  which 
call  insistently  for  a  proper  interpretation. 
[     205     ] 


BALANCE 

When  our  author  extends  his  thesis,  won  on  the 
field  of  phenomenal  observation,  to  the  region  of  the 
transcendental,  some  things  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count which  he  has  not  wholly  ignored,  but  which  do 
not  seem  to  us  to  be  fully  considered.  The  law  of 
compensation  is  a  law  of  the  universe  as  a  whole  and 
cannot  be  gathered  from  any  single  part  of  it.  Our 
earth,  for  instance,  parts  yearly  with  heat  it  will  never, 
it  may  be,  regain.  Only  on  the  field  of  the  whole  can 
we  assert  the  law  of  equivalence.  Now,  the  applica- 
tion by  analogy  of  this  law  to  the  moral  life  will  be  to 
the  race  and  not  to  the  individual.  The  suicide  is  the 
sowing  of  the  race,  and  the  race  reaps  the  fruit  of 
its  sowing,  but  no  analogy  from  the  physical  labora- 
tory can  assure  us  that  the  individual  must  exhibit 
within  the  bounds  of  time  the  law  of  equivalence. 
This  may  be,  indeed  is,  the  writer's  faith,  but  it  is 
founded  upon  other  and  different  interpretations  of 
life's  values  than  those  of  the  laboratory. 

This  seems  to  be  the  fundamental  defect  of  a  read- 
able and  interesting  attempt  at  a  wide  generalization. 
The  basis  of  a  religious  faith  must  ever  be  one  of 
spiritual  values,  and  with  these  the  laboratory  and 
the  mathematical  study  have  nothing  to  do.  There 
can  be  no  contradiction  because  the  fields  are  not 
the  same.  The  writer  admits  that  equivalence  is 
never  as  absolute  equilibrium  obtained  (chap.  ii).  In 
[     206     ] 


APPENDIX 


fact,  balance  is  a  mental  concept.  Its  type  of  reality 
must  not  be  confused  with  other  types  of  reality. 
This,  we  fear,  the  writer  does.  At  the  same  time  the 
work  is  a  wholesome  sign  of  an  awakened  interest 
in  deepest  philosophical  questionings,  and  the  lofty 
idealism  of  the  author  is  apparent  throughout. 


GoTTiNGEN,  Germany, 
June  30,  1904. 


By  PHILIP   S.  MOXOM,  D.  D. 

Pastor  of  South  Congregational  Churchy  Springfield, 
Mass. ;  author  of  "  The  Religion  of  Hope^^  etc. 

This  is  a  small  book  containing  less  than  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  duodecimo  pages,  but  its  weight  and 
worth  are  altogether  out  of  proportion  to  its  size. 
The  author  takes  a  simple  and  fundamental  scientific 
principle  and  applies  it  to  religion,  with  a  result  that 
must  command  the  attention  of  all  serious  readers 
and  will  command  the  assent  of  all  who  are  not  preju- 
diced. His  entire  argument  rests  on  the  essential 
integrity  of  the  universe. 

"  Man,"  as  Sabatier  said,  "  is  incurably  religious," 
but  religion  is  inseparable  from  morality,  and  moral- 
ity has  its  base  in  the  constitution  of  things.  It  must 
follow,  therefore,  that  the  scientific  and  the  spiritual 
interpretations  of  the  wo'rld  and  life  move  toward  a 
[     207     ] 


BALANCE 

common  center.  The  principles  of  interaction  and 
equivalence  must  be  valid  in  every  sphere  and  rule 
in  theology  as  well  as  in  physics.  This  is  involved 
in  the  consistency  of  the  divine  thought  and  action. 
These  principles  must  be  valid  also  for  a  future  life, 
as  well  as  for  this  life,  and  their  existence  in  this  life 
leads  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  that  there  will  be 
a  future  life.  Thus  the  belief  in  immortality  acquires 
a  scientific  basis. 

This  is  no  scheme  of  necessity  or  fatalism  in  the  me- 
chanical sense.  Human  responsibility  is  conserved, 
and  the  reflex  of  action  upon  character  is  assured. 
"  Whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap." 

To  the  superficial  reader  the  author's  argument 
may  seem  to  exclude  some  of  the  implications  of 
Christianity,  but  the  reader  who  follows  the  argument 
closely  and  carries  it  out  to  its  last  result  will  be 
convinced  that  nothing  essential  has  been  excluded. 
That  the  basic  principles  of  Jesus'  teaching  harmo- 
nize so  immediately  and  exactly  with  the  author's 
main  contention  is  striking  evidence  of  the  univer- 
sality of  that  teaching,  notably  as  expressed  in  the 
concluding  verses  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

The  apologetic  literature  of  a  generation  ago  is  now 

laid  aside.    Its  weakness  was  its  failure  to  coordinate 

the  religious  with  the  scientific  interpretation  of  the 

world.   The  new  apologetiCs,  of  which  Mr.  Smith's 

[     208     ] 


APPENDIX 


book  is  an  eminent  example,  supplants  the  old,  incor- 
porating all  that  was  fundamentally  valid  in  it,  and 
effects  the  needed  reconciliation  in  which  "mind 
and  soul,  according  well,  shall  make  one  music,  as  be- 
fore, but  vaster." 

Springfield,  Mass., 
June  I,  1904. 

By  JAMES   S.  STONE,  D.  D. 

Rector  ofSt.Ja7nes's  Episcopal  Church,  Chicago  ;  author 
of  "  Readings  in  Church  History,^''  etc. 

The  Christian  theologian  will  welcome  this  book 
as  a  clear  and  helpful  study  in  the  first  principles  of 
religion.  It  does  not  indeed  touch  upon  truths  which 
are  peculiarly  Christian,  such  as  the  revelation  of 
God  in  Christ,  and  this  for  sufficient  reason.  The 
difficulties  that  trouble  men  to-day,  and  more  espe- 
cially men  of  a  scientific  cast  of  mind,  are  found  not 
so  much  in  the  superstructure  or  evolution  of,  say, 
the  Christian  faith  as  in  the  foundations  of  all  re- 
ligion, in  that  element  or  quality  upon  which  all 
religions,  of  whatsoever  name,  are  built.  Back  of 
all  forms  of  faith  or  cult,  for  years  the  conflict  has 
gone  on,  and,  if  religion  be  defeated  there,  all  faith 
and  cult,  no  matter  what  their  form,  antiquity  or 
association,  come  to  naught.  Into  that  field  the 
[     209     ] 


BALANCE 

author  of  this  book  takes  his  reader,  and  there  does 
him  good  service. 

Underlying  all  religious  beliefs  is  the  essential 
truth — right  rules  the  world.  This  is  held  and  has 
commonly  been  held  by  all  peoples  whose  conception 
of  religion  has  in  it  vitality  and  permanence.  And 
all  peoples  have  further  agreed  that  the  soul  is 
accountable  for  its  actions,  that  the  soul  survives  the 
death  of  the  body,  and  that  a  Supreme  Being  rights 
all  things.  The  author,  though  he  uses  it,  does  not 
rest  upon  the  evidence  that  in  all  ages  of  which 
history  can  take  cognizance  these  articles  of  faith 
have  been  held  —  that  man  has  always  had  a  religion 
in  which  these  elements  have  been  dominant  —  but 
he  endeavors  to  show  both  their  reasonableness  and 
their  necessity. 

This  he  does  by  maintaining  an  analogy  between 
things  physical  and  things  spiritual,  or,  in  other 
words,  by  claiming  that  a  uniformity  of  law  obtains 
in  both  realms  of  life.  Thus  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  even  though  the  strongest  argument  for  its 
truth  comes  from  man's  intuitive  perception,  one 
might  almost  say  instinct,  yet  it  also  receives  sup- 
port from  the  same  principle  as  the  indestructibility 
of  matter,  and  the  religious  doctrine  of  just  conse- 
quences is  one  with  the  Newtonian  axiom  —  to  every 
action  there  is  an  equal  reaction.  In  this  axiom,  by 
[      2IO      ] 


APPENDIX 


the  way,  the  author  finds  suggestion  for  the  title  of 
his  book.  "  The  fundamental  conceptions  of  sci- 
ence," he  says,  "  point  distinctly  and  with  emphasis 
to  this  higher  and  single  generalization  —  that  Bal- 
ance rules  the  world.  Balance  is  the  key  that  unlocks 
them,  the  word  that  explains  them,  the  principle  that 
harmonizes  them."  In  this  sense  balance  and  truth 
or  right  are  practically  synonyms. 

The  reader  who  has  pictured  to  himself  a  time 
when  sin  shall  have  passed  away  and  righteousness 
alone  shall  remain  will  perhaps  demur  at  the  appli- 
cation to  morals  of  the  physical  principle  that  force 
is  persistent  and  indestructible.  He  will  demur  at 
the  prospect  of  the  deathlessness  of  evil,  and  yet  the 
analogy  is  rightly  made.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impos- 
sible, to  conceive  of  goodness,  truth  and  virtue  ex- 
isting without  their  antitheses.  If  a  man  can  be  good, 
he  has  also  the  potentiality  of  ill.  Otherwise  he  has 
the  quality  of  goodness  as  a  necessity,  and  therefore 
has  it  without  honor  or  credit  to  himself.  He  is  no 
longer  a  moral  and  responsible  being.  So  that  we 
take  the  author  to  be  well  within  reason  when  he 
holds  that,  as  a  man  striking  a  wall  receives  in  reac- 
tion therefrom  a  blow  proportionate  in  force  to  that 
which  he  expended,  so  when  a  man  does  an  ill  action 
the  consequences  inevitably  come  back  to  him.  He 
reaps  as  he  has  sown. 

[     ^"     ] 


BALANCE 


The  book  deserves  the  highest  commendation.  It 
is  not  only  a  helpful  study  in  natural  religion,  a 
praiseworthy  effort  to  indicate  the  fundamental  har- 
mony between  physical  science  and  natural  religion, 
but  it  is  also  written  most  attractively,  in  a  vigorous, 
honest  style,  with  apt  allusions  and  illustrations. 
The  description  of  the  sand-dunes  along  the  ocean 
shore  is  both  a  fitting  introduction  to  the  author's 
argument  and  a  pleasing  evidence  of  his  artistic  and 
literary  skill.  These  qualities  make  that  intellectual 
power  which  is  manifest  in  the  work  from  beginning 
to  end  all  the  more  attractive,  and  we  are  satisfied 
that  the  book  will  be  remembered  both  for  its  sturdy 
grace  of  composition  and  for  its  guidance  through 
the  wilderness  of  misapprehensions  and  controversy. 
Chicago, 
May  29,  1904. 

By  HOWARD   AGNEW  JOHNSTON,  D.  D. 

Pastor  of  Madison  Avenue  Presbyterian  Church, 
New  York. 

I  have  read  "  Balance  "  with  much  interest.  Its 
emphasis  upon  the  inevitable  working  of  the  law  of 
compensation  is  impressive.  Its  indications  of  the 
truth  that  excess  defeats  itself  are  clear.  Its  argu- 
ment that  the  universe  is  manifestly  ruled  by  the 
[     212     ] 


APPENDIX 


right  rather  than  by  the  wrong  is  convincing.  Its 
proof  that  the  moral  accountability  of  the  individual 
must  extend  into  the  future  life,  if  there  be  any 
religious  reality,  is  clear.  Its  argument  that  the  con- 
tinuance of  motion  in  all  things,  as  an  argument 
against  death,  and  that  the  indestructibility  of  any- 
thing points  to  the  continued  life  of  man,  is  help- 
ful. Its  claim  that  both  religion  and  science  agree 
in  the  teaching  that  "  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that 
shall  he  also  reap,"  is  made  good.  The  law  of  con- 
sequences is  simply  inevitable.  Justice  is  on  the 
throne. 

All  this  the  book  makes  plain.  Perhaps  it  is  not 
to  the  point  to  urge  that  man  needs  something  more 
than  all  this  to  satisfy  his  need  and  solve  his  prob- 
lem. On  the  side  of  Nature  the  warnings  against 
disobedience  and  the  invitations  to  obey  are  mani- 
fest when  one  has  eyes  to  see,  but  the  difficulty  with 
so  many  is  that  they  have  no  eyes  to  see.  There  must 
come  a  teacher  who  will  point  out  these  truths,  and 
especially  lead  the  soul  to  realize  its  possibilities  in 
the  sphere  of  spiritual  realities.  The  world's  need  of 
great  teachers,  prophets,  leaders  into  the  truth,  is 
manifest  through  all  the  ages.  The  greatest  of  these 
must  be  that  Teacher  who  opens  to  men  the  victories 
of  true  character,  or,  to  use  a  scientific  term,  the 
greatest  specialist  in  character  is  the  world's  greatest 
[     213     ] 


BALANCE 

hope.   All  the  world  knows  that  the  greatest  special- 
ist in  character  is  Jesus  the  Christ. 
New  York, 
June  4,  1904. 

By  GEORGE  C.  ADAMS,  D.  D. 
Pastor  First  Congregational  Church,  San  Francisco. 

I  have  read  with  deep  interest  the  book  entitled 
"  Balance  :  The  Fundamental  Verity,"  by  Orlando 
J.  Smith.  The  conception  is  one  that  has  been  often 
spoken  of,  but  I  have  never  seen  it  worked  up  in 
this  way.  It  is  all  the  more  interesting  because  of 
its  application  to  that  vexed  question,  the  relation 
of  science  and  religion.  My  own  judgment  is  that 
there  can  be  no  mistake  in  taking  the  position  that 
science  points  to  the  return  of  equivalence  and  com- 
pensation everywhere.  The  illustrations  of  this  used 
in  the  book  are  singularly  apt,  and  in  reading  it  one 
is  carried  along  to  this  one  conclusion  —  there  seems 
no  escape  from  it. 

We  have  all  felt  the  inequality  of  lives  that  end 
here,  and  this  has  always  been  a  strong  argument  in 
favor  of  a  future  life ;  that  there  must  somehow  be 
an  evening  up  of  what  has  appeared  unjust,  if  it  went 
no  further.  I  think  it  is  pretty  generally  recognized 
to-day  among  thoughtful  people  that  moral  account- 
[     214     ] 


APPENDIX 


ability  must  extend  into  the  future  life,  and  that  there 
must  be  compensation  equivalent  to  the  acts  of  the 
life.  One  of  the  failures  in  theology  has  been  the 
disposition  to  try  to  do  away  with  the  accountability 
of  the  individual  and  sink  it  entirely  in  what  did  not 
appear  to  many  to  be  a  just  arrangement.  Forgive- 
ness of  sin  is  one  thing,  and  payment  of  a  just  debt 
is  another.  More  and  more  thinkers  have  been  com- 
ing to  the  conclusion  that  the  moral  accountability 
of  the  individual  persists  through  this  life  and  the 
next. 

The  effort  of  the  writer  to  identify  the  scientific 
and  the  religious  conceptions  of  action  and  reaction 
is  intensely  interesting,  and  it  certainly  seems  natu- 
ral that  the  same  law  should  hold  in  both  depart- 
ments. God  is  not  one  thing  in  Nature  and  another 
in  revelation.  He  is  consistent  in  all  His  acts  and 
is  always  the  same.  Ever  since  Henry  Drummond 
called  our  attention  to  the  identity  of  natural  and 
spiritual  laws  we  have  been  prepared  to  see  the 
thought  carried  further.  Then  it  was  "  Natural  Law 
in  the  Spiritual  World,"  but  this  is  the  idea  of  the 
identity  of  natural  and  spiritual  law  and  is  a  long 
step  in  advance. 

It  has  been  a  fact  of  interest  to  many  that  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  so  strongly  advocated  the  thought  that 
between  a  true  religion  and  a  true  science  there  can 
[     -^S     ] 


BALANCE 

be  no  conflict.  It  is  well  that  this  should  come  from 
the  scientific  side.  But  we  are  ready  to  go  further 
than  that  and  assert  that  a  true  religion  and  a  true 
science  must  be  one,  that  the  same  principles  under- 
lie both,  and  that  they  are  only  different  manifes- 
tations of  the  same  eternal  verities.  I  regard  Mr. 
Smith's  book  as  a  distinct  contribution  to  the  fur- 
therance of  this  great  fact  and  welcome  it  as  exceed- 
ingly timely. 
San  Francisco, 
June  9,  1904. 


By  C.  ELLIS   STEVENS,  LL.  D. 

Rector  of  Christ  Episcopalian  Church,  Philadelphia; 
Special  Lecturer  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  poet  Stedman  once  ventured  the  remark  that 
a  large  factor  in  Longfellow's  success  was  his  habit 
of  being  interesting.  It  must  be  owned  that  one  can- 
not often  say  that  sort  of  thing  of  authors  of  our 
modern  scientific  works.  To  readers  already  athirst 
for  newest  facts  and  fads  driest  presentation  may  do 
well  enough.  However  that  be,  few  who  open  "  Bal- 
ance "  but  will  be  attracted  to  it  by  the  quality  of 
fascination  from  start  to  finish. 

There  is  ever  a  difficulty  in  drawing  a  line  between 
[     2'6     ] 


APPENDIX 


science  and  philosophy,  the  one  seeking  truth  by 
observation  and  the  other  by  reasoning.  President 
Noah  Porter  of  Yale,  though  accustomed  to  philoso- 
phy, used  carefully  to  define  science  as  the  observa- 
tion of  uniform  sequence.  The  definition  sounded 
dry  indeed.  But  for  simple  instance  Newton's  expe- 
rience with  the  falling  apple  led  to  the  observation 
that  nothing  ever  falls  up,  but  all  things  down,  and 
this  to  the  discovery  of  the  law  of  gravitation  and  its 
application  to  the  universe.  Yet  even  gravity  is  only 
a  name  we  apply  to  an  effect.  And  when  we  come 
to  ask  why  this  observed  force  thus  uniformly  acts 
we  pass  into  philosophy. 

Such  distinction  as  to  exact  science  and  philosophy 
appears  essential  to  a  really  adequate  estimate  of 
Mr.  Smith's  striking  book.  The  conflict  in  the  last 
century  between  religion  and  science  was  not  in  the 
sphere  of  facts,  but  rather  in  the  sphere  of  honest  and 
earnest  theories  about  facts.  And  there  was  gain 
in  the  destruction  of  some  theories  and  theorists  on 
both  sides.  With  leading  scientists  of  to-day  becom- 
ing more  outspokenly  religious,  and  religious  leaders 
more  unhesitatingly  scientific,  such  a  book  as  "  Bal- 
ance "  is  made  possible.  The  book  belongs  distinctly 
to  this  controversy  and  is  deserving  of  careful  atten- 
tion and  frank  recognition  on  both  sides. 

"Balance"  is  a  Christian  book  on  a  scientific  basis. 
[     217     ] 


BALANCE 

It  fearlessly,  but  very  fairly  and  calmly,  insists  upon 
the  scientific  facts  of  the  moral  nature  of  man  on  the 
basis  of  observed  uniform  sequence,  and  it  discusses 
in  a  scientific  spirit  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and 
the  essentials  of  religion.  There  is  an  absence  of 
the  merely  controversial  spirit.  Throughout  there  is 
reverent  and  at  the  same  time  fresh  and  uncompro- 
mising original  discussion  of  vital  questions.  As  in  all 
scientific  works,  an  element  of  philosophy  is  present, 
the  author  expressing  his  point  by  saying,  "  Balance 
is  a  word  in  which  are  concentrated,  I  hold,  the  higher 
meanings  of  the  words  order,  right  and  justice." 

The  full  significance  of  this  dictum  may  not  at  first 
be  apparent,  but  contemplation  points  to  profound 
facts  of  uniform  observation  —  the  fact  of  the  equi- 
librium of  physical  forces,  whether  on  our  planet  or 
out  in  the  stellar  universe,  and  the  fact  of  just  such 
equilibrium  in  the  processes  of  human  economics, 
whether  of  the  individual  or  the  nation,  and  in  all 
psychic  motor  elements  of  life. 

The  reader  will  prefer  to  learn  for  himself  in  detail 
how  this  able  writer  has  applied  the  great  truth  to 
religion  and  to  the  all-absorbing  problem  of  human- 
ity. But  there  can  be  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the 
author  has  gone  far  to  discover,  or  at  least  extend, 
a  scientific  principle  affecting  religion  and  life  which 
cannot  hereafter  be  left  out  of  account  by  the  think- 

[     2»8     J 


APPENDIX 


ing  world.   He  has  made  an  exceptionally  important 
contribution  to  newest  and  ripest  scientific  thought. 

Philadelphia, 
June  17,  1904. 

By  SAMUEL   SCHULMAN,  D.  D. 

'       Rabbi  of  Temple  Beth-El,  New  York  City. 

This  is  a  little  book  that  condenses  much  thought 
and  makes  entertaining  reading  on  the  profoundest 
of  subjects.  It  is  an  attempt  to  discover  the  funda- 
mental verity  which  shall  embrace  the  investigations 
in  the  realms  of  physical  science,  history,  ethics  and 
religion.  It  is  a  brave  attempt  at  a  monistic  philoso- 
phy. As  such  it  appeals  to  our  sympathies,  though 
it  arouses  our  misgivings.  We  admire  the  'Writer's 
wise  and  comprehensive  grasp  of  the  facts  of  science 
and  religion  and  his  thoroughgoing  personal  appro- 
priation and  harmonization  of  them  in  his  philosophy 
of  life.  Nothing  can  be  more  beneficial  than  the  au- 
thor's simple  and  powerful  presentation  of  the  inner 
unity  of  science  and  religion.  But  we  cannot  sub- 
scribe to  his  methods.  Like  all  systems  of  monism, 
this  secures  unity,  at  the  price  of  confusion ;  the 
identification  of  physical  with  psychical  phenomena, 
facts  of  material  nature,  with  postulates  of  thought 
and  conscience,  things  really  distinct  and  not  inter- 
[     219     ] 


BALANCE 

pretable,  one  by  the  other.  An  inner  unity  will  be 
discovered  by  being  true  both  to  science  and  re- 
ligion, by  mental  sincerity,  not  by  artificial  reconcili- 
ation. 

From  the  building  of  sand-banks  which  defeat  the 
ocean  by  its  own  force,  a  beautiful  and  vividly  por- 
trayed illustration  of  Nature's  defeat  of  excess  and  its 
working  out  of  Balance,  with  which  the  book  begins, 
to  the  demand  for  personal  immortality  which  marks 
the  climax  of  the  first  thesis,  the  author  develops  the 
thought  of  equivalent  compensation.  There  is  a 
power  that  adjusts  things,  restrains  excess,  compen- 
sates deficiency,  rights  things.  But  the  intrusion  of 
the  transcendent  world  of  immortality  shows  that  the 
author's  truth  is  stronger  than  his  theory.  It  is  a 
break  with  Monism  and  a  return  to  the  Kantian 
thought  of  immortality  postulated  by  our  conscience. 
That  the  author  feels  the  need  of  immortality  shows 
his  feeling  of  the  disharmony  existing  between  the 
inequitable  distribution  of  happiness  in  this  world 
and  our  demand  for  justice.  But  this  feeling  proves 
the  insufficiency  of  his  law  of  equivalence,  the  incom- 
patibility of  physical  law  with  moral  law.  He  is  im- 
pressive in  his  deductions  of  the  laws  of  the  physical 
universe  from  the  Newtonian  axiom,  although  with 
reference  to  biological  phenomena  it  is  a  question 
whether  simplicity  is  not  here  misleading.  In  the  laws 
[     220     ] 


APPENDIX 


of  mind,  in  the  discussion  of  moral  qualities,  he  is 
not  convincing.  The  identification  of  balance  with 
correctness  and  compensation  is  an  identification  of 
physical  and  moral  which  is  really  begging  the  ques- 
tion.   It  is  a  verbal  analogy,  not  an  identity. 

The  author  further  holds  the  essential  meaning  of 
religion,  as  revealed  by  its  history,  to  be :  (i)  The 
soul's  accountability  for  its  actions ;  (2)  this  account- 
ability is  taken  up  in  the  belief  that  the  soul  sur- 
vives after  the  death  of  the  body ;  (3)  that  there  is  a 
supreme  power  that  rights  things,  whether  this  power 
be  conceived  as  personal  or  not.  All  the  higher  reli- 
gions, of  course,  have  these  ethical  implications.  And, 
as  we  are  justified  in  explaining  religious  significance 
by  the  best  and  the  highest  phases  of  its  evolution, 
we  can  agree  to  the  author's  interpretation  of  the 
kernel  of  religion.  But  it  is  a  question  whether  the 
"propitiation"  of  gods  ought  to  be  interpreted  as 
an  illustration  of  man's  sense  of  accountability  to 
"powers."  The  science  of  religion  would  rather  make 
us  say  that  what  began  as  a  non-ethical  expression 
of  man's  dependence  upon  "  powers  "  became  fused 
with  his  highest  ethical  ideals. 

"  The  religious  doctrine  of  moral  accountability  is 

identical  with  the  scientific  doctrine  of  cause  and 

effect."  As  to  this  we  say  there  is  harmony  because 

they  are  not  opposed,  not  because  they  are  identical. 

[     221     ] 


BALANCE 

Religion  transcends  the  purely  physical  conceptions 
of  science  and  supplements  them  out  of  its  own  re- 
sources. After  all,  whatever  moral  suggestion  there 
is  in  the  word  balance  clings  to  it  from  its  human 
associations.  Religion  is  the  popular  embodiment  of 
a  philosophy  of  idealism  which  seeks  to  interpret  the 
universe  in  the  light  of  its  manifestations  in  human 
thought  and  conscience.  It  cannot  therefore  be 
swallowed  by  a  monistic  principle  taken  from  physics. 
This  book  is  the  expression  of  a  mind  so  catholic, 
so  beautiful  in  its  simplicity  and  stimulating  power, 
that  the  unpleasant  work  of  criticism  is  overwhelmed 
by  the  admiration  of  the  author's  noble  purpose. 

New  York, 
June  24,  1904. 

By  R.  HEBER  NEWTON,  D.  D. 

President  International  Metaphysical  League ;  author 
of  "  Church  and  Creed"  etc. 

A  Long  Islander,  writing  with  the  roar  of  the  At- 
lantic in  his  ears  and  the  curious  forms  of  the  sand- 
dunes  before  his  eyes,  cannot  but  be  charmed  with 
the  opening  paragraphs  of  this  little  book,  picturing 
so  vividly  the  story  of  the  strife  between  the  sea  and 
the  shore,  as  old  ocean,  ever  seeking  a  benevolent 
assimilation  of  the  island,  is  ever  foiled  in  its  impe-' 
[     222     ] 


APPENDIX 


rialism  by  the  very  force  of  its  ambition  —  the  more 
violent  the  storm  which  hurls  itself  against  the  shift- 
ing sands,  the  heavier  being  the  freightage  of  sand 
carried  up  to  reinforce  the  lines  of  defense  of  this 
hard-bestead  land.  A  fine  bit  of  descriptive  writing 
this,  and  a  perfect  parable  of  the  truth  preached  in 
this  most  interesting  and  valuable  book. 

The  argument  of  the  writer  is  that  everywhere 
and  always  through  Nature  action  is  followed  by 
reaction ;  that  the  reaction  always  and  everywhere 
tends  to  be  perfectly  proportionate  to  the  action, 
Nature  thus  seeking  an  equilibrium,  wherein  is  the 
secret  of  the  beautiful  order,  the  cosmos. 

Through  a  vast  variety  of  illustrations  from  the 
different  fields  of  natural  studies  this  truth  is  reiter- 
ated and  reinforced  until  the  reader  feels  beneath 
him  the  sure  and  solid  ground  of  science. 

The  working  of  this  principle  is  then  followed  into 
the  realm  of  mind,  through  the  thoughts  and  feel- 
ings, convictions  and  aspirations  of  the  individual 
man,  and  through  the  social  and  political  movements 
of  "  man  writ  large  "  in  the  rast  and  measureless 
sweep  of  history.  Ideas  and  institutions  act  and  re- 
act in  ceaseless  and  resistless  efforts  toward  equi- 
librium under  the  presence  of  a  power  making  for 
lightness,  and  so  for  righteousness.  Correspondence 
binds  the  heavens  and  the  earth  in  one  system. 
[     223     ] 


BALANCE 


Equivalence  regulates  the  formation  of  a  crystal  as 
of  a  soul.  Character  is  shaped  under  the  law  which 
regulates  the  rise  and  fall  of  empires,  by  the  force 
which  orders  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tides.  Karma 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  tree,  as  of  man.  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  cosmos  is  condensed  into  the  word  com- 
pensation. The  ultimate  principle  of  the  universe  is 
—  balance. 

Man  makes  his  character  according  to  the  law 
that  whatsoever  he  soweth  that  shall  he  also  reap, 
and  character  makes  his  destiny,  else  Nature  fails 
of  finding  a  moral  equilibrium.  Since  this  is  not 
found  here  and  now,  it  must  be  found  elsewhere,  in 
some  after  life,  or  the  constitution  of  the  cosmos  is 
violated.  The  ancient  argument  for  a  life  beyond 
the  grave  found  in  the  inadequacy  of  earthly  justice 
takes  a  new  form  and  power,  as  it  is  seen  to  be  a 
law  of  universal  Nature  translated  from  terms  of 
physics  into  terms  of  ethics. 

Moral  accountability,  the  ethical  expression  of 
the  supreme  law  of  Nature,  balance,  certifies  immor- 
tality, and  in  this  duality  of  constrained  conviction 
stands  out  in  sunlight,  clear  and  calm,  the  secret  of 
the  universe  which  men  have  named  God,  the  being 
and  the  action  of  a  power  ever  seeking  "  to  right 
things,"  to  bring  about  an  order  of  perfectly  propor- 
tioned and  benignly  balanced  adjustment,  in  which 
[     224     ] 


APPENDIX 


every  due,  becoming  a  duty  owed  by  Nature,  is  dis- 
charged by  destiny. 

Religion's  three  "  fundamentals  "  —  the  moral  ac- 
countability of  man,  immortality,  God  —  are  the 
three  fundamentals  of  science. 

Religion  itself,  therefore,  essential  and  universal, 
is  one,  however  many  and  apparently  conflicting 
religions  may  be. 

Such,  in  outline,  is  the  argument  of  this  remark- 
able little  volume,  the  author  proving  himself  a 
"  wise  scribe  "  in  that  he  "  brings  out  of  the  treasury 
things  "  at  once  "  new  and  old"  —  old  as  the  earth 
itself,  new  as  the  freshest  interpretation  of  Nature 
and  of  man,  the  most  ancient  faiths  of  humankind 
fashioned  into  a  "  form  of  sound  words  "  drawn  up 
by  Science  herself,  the  creed  of  universal  religion. 

In  all  which  the  author  seems  to  the  present  re- 
viewer utterly  right  —  right  as  the  order  of  Nature 
and  as  "the  secret  of  the  Lord  "  which  is  "with 
them  that  fear  Him." 

The  book  is  a  multum  in  parvo,  bulking  small,  but 
weighing  heavily,  so  little  that  one  may  read  it  of  an 
evening,  so  condensed  that  it  will  mingle  with  the 
thoughts  of  many  an  after  evening,  charging  them 
all  with  vital  force  and  sweet  savor. 

It  is  written  in  a  style  which  makes  easy  reading 
—  broken  into  short  chapters,  composed  of  short 
[     225     ] 


BALANCE 


sentences,  clean-cut  and  crisp  and  clear  as  the 
thought  behind  the  translucent  words. 
East  Hampton,  N.  Y., 
June  8,  1904. 

By  SAMUEL  A.  ELIOT,  D.  D. 

President  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association. 

This  is  a  compact  and  convincing  statement  of  the 
law  of  compensation.  Mr.  Smith  writes  with  refresh- 
ing candor.  His  chapters  are  short;  his  sentences 
ring  true  ;  his  style  is  as  crisp  as  his  title.  The  logic 
of  the  argument  is  as  irresistible  as  the  law  which 
the  argument  unfolds.  We  are  assured  that  "  Nature 
has  no  pendulum  which  swings  in  one  direction 
only,"  and  that  all  things  are  "  under  the  control  of 
some  power  or  principle  which  curbs  excess,  restrains 
deficiency,  restores  balance,  grants  compensation." 
The  argument  proceeds  on  strictly  scientific  lines, 
deducing  the  known  laws  of  natural  phenomena  and 
applying  them  remorselessly  to  the  action  and  reac- 
tion which  are  equally  observable  in  the  realms  of 
man's  intellectual  life  and  moral  obligations.  The 
result  is  to  firmly  establish  the  fundamental  precepts 
of  natural  religion  and  to  give  us  assurances  that  the 
moral  accountability  of  every  individual  soul  is  not 
discharged  in  this  brief  mortal  existence.  The  scien- 
[     226     ] 


APPENDIX 


tific  conception  of  physical  action  as  ceaseless  and 
compensatory  is  shown  to  be  identical  with  the  re- 
ligious conception  of  human  action  as  eternal  and 
subject  to  the  law  of  consequences.  Mr.  Smith  does 
not  allude  to  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament 
or  to  what  are  commonly  called  Christian  doctrines, 
but  his  argument  moves  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
saying  "  Whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also 
reap,"  is  confirmed  by  all  scientific  investigation  as 
well  as  by  human  experience. 

Philosophy  is  supposed  to  be  hard  reading,  but 
this  book  reveals  a  force  and  alertness  of  mind,  an 
originality  of  treatment,  a  mastery  of  fact  and  a  ra- 
pidity of  narrative  that  should  commend  it  to  all  who 
are  interested  in  the  problems  of  vital  religion.  One 
gets  the  impression  of  a  scholar  and  writer  who  is 
no  vague  dreamer,  but  a  man  of  affairs  who  is  secure 
in  his  footing  and  certain  of  touch.  He  indulges  in 
no  questioning  guesses  and  no  wistful  imaginings. 
The  line  of  his  thought  runs  strong  and  sure.  With- 
out being  belligerent  he  is  terse  and  direct.  There 
is  no  dodging  of  issues,  no  incoherency  of  state- 
ment, no  special  pleading,  no  philosophical  vocabu- 
lary. Everything  reveals  a  free  and  straightforward 
thinker,  uncompromisingly  loyal  to  facts.  His  book 
is  the  application  of  observational  science  to  the 
realm  of  religious  inquiry. 

[     227     ] 


BALANCE 

The  method  and  order  of  procedure  are  interest- 
ing and  significant.  Theological  scholars  have  usu- 
ally worked  from  the  big  end  of  problems  to  the 
small  end.  They  too  habitually  work  from  the  uni- 
verse to  the  individual,  from  the  circumference  to 
the  center,  from  God  to  man.  When  a  man  of  scien- 
tific habit  tackles  a  theological  probjem  he  is  apt  to 
approach  it  from  the  small  end.  Mr.  Smith  begins 
with  the  facts  of  human  observation  and  experience 
and  works  outward  and  upward.  But  this  author  not 
only  sees  facts;  he  also  sees  what  facts  stand  for 
and  predict.  He  puts,  as  it  were,  a  candle  within 
the  ordinary  things  of  scientific  verification  and 
makes  them  glow  as  with  celestial  light.  He  turns 
sight  into  insight.  It  has  often  been  held  that,  in 
proportion  as  the  processes  of  Nature  are  explained 
and  referred  to  established  laws,  everything  must 
become  tame  and  commonplace.  There  will  be  no 
room  for  the  play  of  imagination,  and  men  will  look 
down  on  everything  and  look  up  to  nothing.  The 
fast  increasing  literature  of  what  may  be  called  sci- 
entific theology  is  rapidly  driving  away  this  delusion. 
We  are  learning  that  while  science  reveals  truths, 
declares  facts,  removes  prejudices,  it  does  not  banish 
the  ideal.  A  true  science  only  furnishes  new  material 
for  poetry.  The  unknown  lands  about  us  are  only 
multiplied.    We  are  learning  that  what  really  fills  a 

[       228       ] 


APPENDIX 


thinking  mind  with  awe  is  not  the  disorder,  but  the 
order,  of  the  universe;  not  the  occasional  convul- 
sions, but  the  fact  that  a  few  simple  laws  reign 
throughout  all  this  apparent  diversity  and  confusion 
and  give  unity  and  stability  and  balance  to  the 
whole. 


Cambridge,  Mass., 
June  23,  1904. 


[     229     ] 


ANSWERS  TO   REVIEWERS 

In  reading  "  straight  through  "  the  preced- 
ing reviews  as  they  come  to  me  in  type,  I 
perceive  that  their  first  effect  upon  the 
mind  of  the  reader  may  be  confusing  — 
that  the  introduction  of  many  and  diverse 
views,  some  being  connected  remotely, 
and  others  being  disconnected,  with  the 
main  issue,  may  tend  to  obscure  that  main 
issue,  and  to  raise  some  doubt  concerning 
the  real  question  under  consideration. 

It  is  necessary  to  get  our  bearings  here, 
to  take  a  new  reckoning,  that  we  may  not 
miss  our  port.  The  letter  soliciting  the  re- 
views of  this  book  requested  that  each 
writer  should  confine  himself  to  any  or  all 
of  the  three  fundamental  propositions  of 
the  theory  of  balance.  These  fundamentals 
were  presented  in  the  form  of  questions, 
which  I  reproduce  here  rather  than  refer 
the  reader  to  a  preceding  page: 
[    230    ] 


APPENDIX 


"  I.  Is  the  author  right  or  wrong  in  his  conclusion 
that  scientific  experience  and  the  higher  interpreta- 
tions of  the  system  of  Nature  point  distinctly  to  one 
fundamental  interpretation  —  the  return  of  equiva- 
lence and  compensation  in  all  interactions  ? 

"  2.  Is  he  right  or  wrong  in  his  conclusion  that 
the  moral  accountability  of  the  individual,  extended 
into  a  future  life,  is  fundamental  in  religion  ? 

"  3.  Is  he  right  or  wrong  in  his  conclusion  that 
the  scientific  conception  of  physical  action  as  cease- 
less and  compensatory  is  identical  with  the  religious 
conception  of  human  action  as  being  also  ceaseless 
and  compensatory;  in  other  words,  is  Newton's 
axiom,  *To  every  action  there  is  an  equal  reaction,' 
the  counterpart  of  the  religious  doctrine  of  just  con- 
sequences —  that  men  shall  reap  as  they  sow  ? " 

Some  of  11137^  reviewers  have  adhered 
closely  to  these  questions;  others  have 
wandered.  I  take  no  exception  to  the 
wanderings  —  many  of  them  being  sug- 
gestive and  instructive  —  save  so  far  as 
they  may  becloud  the  main  issue. 

For  the  sake  of  clearness,  I  shall  divide 
the  answers  to  my  critics  into  two  parts 
—  "  Minor  Issues  "  and  "  Fundamental  Is- 
[    231    ] 


BALANCE 

sues."  By  "  Minor  Issues,"  I  mean  those 
that  are  minor  in  their  relations  to  the  foun- 
dations of  the  theory  of  balance,  and  not 
minor  or  unimportant  in  themselves.  Un- 
der "  Minor  Issues  "  I  shall  consider  those 
criticisms  which,  though  not  fundamental 
in  their  application,  call  for  further  eluci- 
dation or  discussion. 

I  shall  decline  to  discuss  those  issues, 
immaterial  in  a  fundamental  sense,  or 
remotely  connected  with  the  main  issue, 
which  would  carry  me  too  far  afield.  Mr. 
Mallock,  for  example,  raises  the  question  of 
"  determinism,"  and  Mr.  Mangasarian  asks, 
"Why  should  one  man  have  only  one  tal- 
ent and  his  neighbor  ten  talents  ?  "  These 
are  important  questions.  I  have  discussed 
them  at  length  in  my  "Eternalism;  "  but 
they  cannot,  in  my  judgment,  be  consid- 
ered here  without  prolonging,  unnecessa- 
rily and  unprofitably,  this  discussion. 

For  the  same  reason  I  shall  decline  the 
issues  raised  by  Dr.  G.  B.  Stevens,  Dr. 
[    232    ] 


APPENDIX 


E.  L.  Curtis,  Dr.  W.  N.  Clarke  and  others 
who  criticise  my  work  as  incomplete  in  its 
failure  to  extend  the  inquiry  concerning 
the  significance  of  religion  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  natural  or  universal  reli- 
gion, into  the  region  of  Christianity  or  of 
Judaism.  I  have  confined  myself  strictly 
to  the  agreements  between  the  different 
expressions  of  faith.  I  have  tried  to  find 
that  ground  only  of  which  the  different 
religious  organizations  may  say,  "  It  is 
sound  so  far  as  it  goes."  I  have  not  hoped 
to  find  a  ground  which  will  include  and 
reconcile  all  creeds.  The  creeds,  being 
more  or  less  in  conflict,  are  irreconcilable. 
I  acknowledge  the  great  importance  of  the 
issues  raised  by  these  critics.  I  have  no 
desire  to  evade  them,  but  I  believe  that 
they  are  foreign  to  the  present  inquiry. 

Under  the  heading  of  "  Fundamental 
Issues "  I  shall  consider  those  criticisms 
which  touch  distinctly  the  foundations  of 
the  theory  of  balance. 

[    233    ] 


BALANCE 

I  offer  my  thanks  —  gratefully,  not  form- 
ally—  to  the  reviewers  who  have  found 
something  in  my  work  to  commend,  and 
also  to  those,  not  less  helpful,  who  have 
searched  for  the  weak  points  in  my  armor. 
In  this  connection  I  desire  to  acknowledge 
also  my  indebtedness  to  Dr.  William  H. 
Scott,  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  for  a  close  criti- 
cism, which  has  been  of  much  value  to  me, 
of  the  original  copy  of  "  Balance." 


[    234    ] 


I.  MINOR  ISSUES. 

I.   The  Rose  and  the  Soul, 

Mr.  Mallock  says: 

"  Science,  he  says,  shows  us  that  the  individual 
life  must  be  immortal,  because  science  shows  us  that 
nothing  which  exists  can  be  destroyed.  That  nothing 
can  be  destroyed  is  in  one  sense  perfectly  true,  but 
in  another  it  is  equally  false.  If  science  shows  us 
that  in  one  sense  nothing  is  destroyed,  it  shows  us 
also  that  in  another  sense  nothing  endures.  The  ma- 
terial of  the  rose  is  indestructible,  but  the  same  rose 
never  blossoms  twice.  Mr.  Smith's  argument  can 
apply  to  the  soul  only  on  the  assumption  that  the 
soul  is  a  non-composite  unity.  His  assumption  may 
be  true,  but  it  has  no  foundation  in  science." 

I  hold  that  the  theory  of  the  indestructi- 
bility of  matter  and  force  sustains,  but  I 
do  not  claim  that  it  proves,  separately  and 
alone,  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The 
theory  of  universal  conservation  forms  one 
link  in  a  chain  of  evidence  which  appears 
to  me  to  be  conclusive.  I  cannot  agree 
[    235    ] 


BALANCE 


with  Mr.  Mallock  in  his  statement:  "If 
science  shows  us  that  in  one  sense  nothing 
is  destroyed,  it  shows  us  also  that  in  an- 
other sense  nothing  endures."  Science 
shows  us  ceaseless  transformation  and  no 
annihilation.  Matter,  which  is  senseless, 
appears  constantly  in  new  forms  —  in  a 
leaf,  a  rose,  an  animal.  There  is  also  a 
thing  which  is  not  senseless;  whether  it  be 
destructible  or  indestructible,  let  us  call  it 
the  soul.  Is  it  also  subject  to  transforma- 
tion ?  Yes ;  it  is  constantly  changing,  grow- 
ing wiser  or  duller,  stronger  or  weaker, 
better  or  worse.  Under  our  observation 
it  survives  these  changes.  It  may  descend, 
and  yet  ascend  again,  and  again  descend. 
It  may  suffer  a  thousand  defeats,  and  yet 
triumph  over  all.  One  soul  may  dominate 
millions  of  other  souls;  it  has  the  power 
to  produce  roses  and  fruits  and  mechan- 
isms and  music,  to  harness  the  forces  and 
to  explore  the  secrets  of  Nature.  It  is  a 
wonderful  thing,  this  soul. 
[    236    ] 


APPENDIX 


Turning  to  Mr.  Mallock's  rose.  Has  it 
the  power  of  self  recuperation?  weak- 
ening, may  it  regain  its  strength?  may  it 
grow  better  or  worse  through  its  own 
powers  or  consent?  has  it  any  dominion 
over  other  roses,  or  over  the  forces  of 
Nature?  No;  the  rose,  we  judge,  is  non- 
conscious,  senseless,  with  no  powers  of 
self  preservation,  self  help,  self  advance- 
ment, self  assertion. 

There  are  other  distinctions  between 
the  rose  and  the  soul.  The  rose  develops 
well  only  under  favorable  conditions.  In 
good  soil,  well  protected,  with  so  much 
of  heat  and  moisture,  it  ascends  in  a 
definite  time  to  its  maximum  and  then  de- 
scends regularly  and  definitely  to  its  trans- 
formation. The  soul,  on  the  other  hand, 
often  develops  under  unfavorable  phys- 
ical conditions.  A  great  soul  thrives  in 
solitude,  or  in  facing  difficulties,  dangers, 
pain  and  persecution.  The  soul  has  no 
definite  rise  to  a  maximum  or  descent  to 
[    237    ] 


BALANCE 

a  minimum.  The  soul's  maximum  is  often 
reached  in  old  age,  when  its  body  is  weak- 
est. The  perfection  of  the  rose  depends 
upon  the  strength  of  its  roots  and  of  the 
stalk  upon  which  it  grows,  and  these 
upon  their  physical  nutriment.  If  its  roots 
or  stalk  be  mutilated,  the  rose  will  be 
injured  or  destroyed.  The  soul's  body, 
on  the  other  hand,  may  be  mutilated,  its 
legs  and  arms  may  be  amputated,  without 
any  mutilation  of  the  soul.  The  strength 
of  the  soul  does  not  depend  upon  the 
strength  of  the  physical  body  with  which 
it  is,  for  the  time,  associated.  Strong 
bodies  often  contain  weak  souls.  Science 
has  discovered  no  definite  relation  between 
the  perfection  of  the  physical  body  and  the 
perfection  of  the  soul,  between  digestion 
and  intelligence,  or  between  muscles  and 
morals.  No  bread  or  meat,  no  system  of 
diet  or  physical  culture,  has  been  found 
that  will  make  a  fool  wise  or  a  rascal 
honest.  The  culture  of  the  soul  is  within 
[    238    ] 


APPENDIX 


the  soul.  It  thrives  upon  knowledge  and 
high  ideals;  ignorance  and  vice  degrade 
it.  No  force  external  to  it  can  withhold 
the  soul's  food.  The  supply  of  good  and 
evil,  of  things  uplifting  and  things  de- 
grading, is  inexhaustible,  and  subject  to 
the  demand  of  the  soul.  The  soul  pays 
in  its  own  coinage  for  its  own  food. 

The  materialists  hold  that  man  is  wholly 
physical;  that  the  soul  is  a  product  of,  and 
necessarily  inseparable  from,  the  physical 
body.  If  this  contention  be  sound,  there 
should  be  shown  the  same  reactions  be- 
tween the  body  and  the  soul  that  exist 
between  the  rose-plant  and  the  rose  —  it 
should  be  shown  that  healthy  bodies  are 
invariably  essential  to  healthy  souls;  that 
strong  bodies  produce  strong  souls,  and 
weak  bodies  weak  souls;  that  an  injury  to 
the  body  produces  a  corresponding  injury 
to  the  soul.  If  such  reactions,  complete  to 
the  minutest  degree,  cannot  be  shown  be- 
tween the  soul  and  the  body  —  if  the  soul 
[    239    ] 


BALANCE 


does  not  necessarily  sicken  with  the  body's 
sickness,  or  decay  with  the  body's  decay 
—  why  should  we  assume  that  the  soul 
must  die  with  the  body's  death? 

These  unvarying  reactions  between  the 
body  and  the  soul  cannot  be  shown;  they 
do  not  exist.  To  the  contrary,  experience 
shows  that  the  soul  is  as  completely  inde- 
pendent of  the  body,  here  and  now,  as  is 
possible  in  view  of  the  present  relations 
between  the  two.  As  an  imprisonment, 
even  if  it  be  for  a  lifetime,  does  not  im- 
peach the  ability  of  the  prisoner  to  exist 
apart  from  his  cell,  or  to  walk  forth  if  its 
walls  should  decay,  so  the  present  close 
relation  between  the  soul  and  the  body 
does  not  impeach  the  ability  of  the  soul 
to  exist  apart  from  the  body,  or  to  survive 
the  decay  of  the  body. 

The  soul  is  confined  at  present  in  one 
sense  to  the  body,  and  yet,  in  a  larger 
sense,  it  is  free  from  the  body.  The  poor- 
est laborer,  living  under  forlorn  condi- 
[    240    ] 


APPENDIX 


tions,  may  rise  and  separate  himself  from 
his  body,  even  as  his  body  works  on  dig- 
ging in  a  trench;  lie  may  re-live  in  his 
happier  days;  visit  far  lands  and  scenes; 
recall  the  dead  woman  whom  he  loved; 
rebuild  the  social  system  which  crushes 
him,  revel  in  the  contemplation  of  that 
grand  future  in  which  there  shall  be  no 
vile  tenements  begetting  disease,  no  herd- 
ing begetting  vice,  no  poverty  save  as  the 
result  of  one's  own  incapacity.  Or  he  may, 
as  he  digs  on,  give  to  himself  great  wealth, 
surround  himself  with  fawning  flunkies, 
be  hail  fellow  among  princes,  have  all 
that  his  heart  desires. 

We  assume  that  our  souls  are  in  our 
bodies,  but  they  are  seldom  there.  I  am 
here  at  this  desk,  and  in  a  flash  I  am  else- 
where—  back,  among  the  friends  of  my 
3^outh,  in  the  fertile  valley  where  I  was 
born  ;  I  revisit  scenes  of  happiness,  and 
again  scenes  of  strife  and  fury;  I  gaze  upon 
great  plains  and  lofty  mountains,  and  I  see 
[    HI    ] 


BALANCE 

again  the  face  of  Lincoln;  I  look  into  the 
future  and  I  see  it  as  I  would  have  it;  that 
future  is  mine  completely;  no  one  disputes 
its  possession  with  me;  I  rebuild  in  it  at 
my  ease  and  leisure  as  I  will;  I  hear  in 
the  silence,  and  I  see  in  the  dark;  I  peer 
even  into  the  great  mysteries;  I  see  my 
body  carried  decorously  to  its  grave;  I 
have  no  horror  of  that  grave,  no  fear  that 
I  shall  be  confined  in  it,  no  uneasiness,  no 
doubt.  So  each  soul  roves  at  will,  seeking 
its  own,  appropriating  its  own,  enjoying 
its  own.  The  soul  is  separable  from  the 
body  here.  Its  larger  and  broader  life  here 
is  apart  from  the  body. 

We  follow  the  decay  of  the  rose;  we 
observe  its  absorption  in  other  matter. 
And  we  may  follow  also  the  ashes  of  the 
physical  body.  But,  if  death  ends  all,  where 
shall  we  find  the  ashes  of  the  soul  ?  Here 
was  a  marvelous  thing  that  could  rove  at 
will,  with  potentialities  almost  divine.  If 
it  be  not  annihilated,  into  what  has  it  been 
[    242    ] 


APPENDIX 


transformed?  The  materialist  denies  the 
persistence  of  the  soul  because  he  cannot 
follow  it.  Can  he  follow  its  residuum? 
can  he  trace  its  transformation  ?  If  he  can- 
not find  its  ashes,  then  he  must  assume  that 
it  is  annihilated,  that  there  is  one  exception 
to  the  theory  of  conservation,  one  thing 
that  is  annihilated,  the  one  thing  being 
that  compared  with  which  all  other  things 
are  of  no  consequence  —  the  soul. 

2.   Swift  and  Slow  Compensations. 

Mr.  Mangasarian  builds  upon  my  ad- 
mission that  "  justice  is  incomplete  in  this 
life  "  the  assumption  that  consequently  it 
must  be  forever  incomplete;  that  a  delay 
in  justice  involves  its  complete  failure.  If 
this  be  true,  then  Mr.  Mangasarian  must 
assume  that  the  order  of  Nature  is  wholly 
unjust,  and  he  must  transfer  his  condem- 
nations of  "a  Supreme  Being"  to  Nature 
herself.  For  complete  compensation  is 
often,  indeed  usually,  delayed  here.  The 
[    H3    ] 


BALANCE 

youth  does  not  reap  instantly  the  full  re- 
ward of  the  application  given  to  study. 
The  apple  tree  planted  does  not  at  once 
produce  fruit.  Time  is  as  vital  to  com- 
pensation as  to  evolution.  Our  civilization 
is  the  product  of  all  antecedent  human 
thought  and  effort,  a  compensation  delayed 
for  ages. 

"  What  guarantee  have  we,"  says  Mr. 
Mangasarian,  "  that  the  future  will  not  be 
like  the  past?"  If  he  means  this:  What 
assurance  have  we  that  the  constitution  of 
Nature  will  not  be  the  same  in  the  future 
that  it  has  been  in  the  past?  I  answer  that 
we  have  none.  We  may  be  sure  that  it 
will  be  the  same.  But,  if  he  means  to 
deny  that  anything  can  be  that  has  not 
been,  then  he  is  refuted  by  every  step  in 
human  progress,  every  new  achievement 
in  invention,  art,  science  and  thought, 
every  advance  in  freedom,  fraternity  and 
enlightenment  —  each  being  the  compen- 
sation of  past  effort. 

[    H4    ] 


APPENDIX 


In  one  view  all  natural  processes  are 
perfectly  balanced  at  every  instant  of  time; 
in  another  view  the  processes  of  balance 
have  duration.  Touching  this  issue,  a  phys- 
icist has  handed  to  me  this  statement: 

"  A  stone  may  fall  a  mile,  as  a  result  of  toppling 
from  the  edge  of  a  cliif,  but  there  is  a  perfect  bal- 
ance, during  every  inch  of  the  descent,  between  the 
controlling  forces  and  the  results  thereof.  Neverthe- 
less the  result  of  toppling  from  the  cliff's  edge  is  not 
fully  achieved  until  the  stone  strikes  the  bottom, 
when  there  ensues  a  perfect  equality  of  action  and 
reaction.  And  yet  the  process  continues,  for  the 
stone  is  heated  ;  it  rebounds ;  it  strikes  again  ;  it 
cools ;  and  no  man  knows  the  limit  of  the  resulting 
energies." 

The  system  of  Nature  may  be  compared 
to  an  enormous  business  concern  which  has 
cargoes  here  and  trains  there,  incoming 
and  outgoing;  mills,  quarries  and  mines 
in  operation;  bills  payable  and  bills  re- 
ceivable falling  due  constantly,  and  settle- 
ments innumerable.  And  yet  the  books 
[     H5     ] 


BALANCE 


of  this  concern,  if  correctly  kept,  would 
balance  at  any  moment.  If  there  should  be 
a  failure  in  balancing  the  books,  the  error 
would  be  in  the  books  and  not  in  the  facts. 
As  there  is,  on  the  other  hand,  no  error 
in  Nature's  books,  there  can  be  no  error 
in  Nature's  balance. 

There  are  instantaneous  adjustments  in 
the  system  of  Nature,  and  there  are  ad- 
justments requiring  time;  there  are,  as  Pro- 
fessor Dolbear  has  shown,  short  rhythms 
and  long  rhythms,  "  but  never  a  failure  of 
balance."  There  are  swift  compensations 
and  slow  compensations,  each  coming  in 
its  proper  time  —  swift  compensation  for 
the  swift  action,  slow  compensation  for 
the  prolonged  or  cumulative  action.  For 
each  breath  there  is  immediate  compensa- 
tion in  renewed  life;  for  each  moment's 
toil  there  is  immediate  compensation  in 
achievement;  for  each  good  act  or  thought 
there  is  immediate  compensation  in  one's 
own  character.  These  swift  or  instantane- 
[    246    ] 


APPENDIX 


ous  compensations  cumulate  in  slower  and 
longer  compensations.  The  accumulation 
of  toil  begets  food,  clothing  and  shelter; 
the  accumulation  of  study  begets  knowl- 
edge and  power;  the  accumulation  of  good 
acts  and  deeds  begets  a  sturdy  character. 
And  these  rhythms  beget  other  rhythms, 
extended  into  the  social  body,  improving 
human  conditions,  making  civilization. 

These  rhythms  go  upward.  Other 
rhythms  go  downward.  The  immediate 
penalty  of  each  moment  of  neglect  is 
non-achievement;  of  each  evil  thought  or 
act  is  debasement.  The  continued  neglect 
of  toil  and  inquiry  begets  want  and  igno- 
rance; the  accumulation  of  evil  thoughts 
and  acts  begets  a  depraved  character. 
And  these  downward  rhythms  extend  also 
into  the  social  body,  degrading  human 
conditions,  retarding  civilization. 

We  shall,  I  believe,  make  no  error  if 
we  assume  that  Nature's  balance  is  per- 
fect at  every  moment  of  time  and  in  all 
[    H7    ] 


BALANCE 


phenomena,  and  yet  that  compensation 
has  duration,  not  because  it  is  delayed 
or  overdue,  but  because  processes,  from 
which  compensations  are  inseparable, 
have  duration  also. 

If  the  soul  dies  with  the  dissolution  of 
the  body,  then  death  is  a  knife  that  severs 
the  soul's  acts  from  the  soul's  compen- 
sations, leaving  antecedents  without  con- 
sequences —  a  destruction  of  sequence 
unknown  elsewhere  in  the  natural  order. 

3.  "  The  Fundamental  Verity P 

Dr.  Stewart  says : 

"  In  so  serious  an  inquiry  exactness  in  the  use  of 
terms  would  seem  to  be  a  prime  consideration,  and 
the  reader  asks  for  the  meaning  of  this  'balance' 
which  is  the  'fundamental  verity.*  He  is  disap- 
pointed to  find  that  at  times  the  writer  speaks  of  it 
as  if  it  were  a  law  of  Nature,  as  gravitation ;  in  other 
places  as  if  it  were  a  tendency,  as  the  tendency  of 
an  August  sun  to  produce  a  sunstroke ;  again,  as  a 
force,  like  heat  or  light,  and  in  other  places  arouses 
the  suspicion  that  he  is  using  it  as  a  philosophical . 
principle  or  a  scientific  hjrpothesis." 
[     H8     ] 


APPENDIX 


Balance  is  a  fact  so  universal,  and  the 
phenomena  in  which  it  is  present  are  so 
many  and  varied,  that  it  presents  many 
different  appearances  which,  though  they 
may  seem  to  be  confusing,  are  in  no  sense 
contradictory.  Mr.  Spencer,  who  uses  the 
words  equilibration  and  balance  inter- 
changeably, says  (First  Principles,  p.  500) : 
"  Fully  to  comprehend  the  process  of  equi- 
libration is  not  easy,  since  we  have  simul- 
taneously to  contemplate  various  phases 
of  it."  After  considering  different  phases, 
he  adds  (p.  501)  :  "All  these  kinds  of 
equilibration  may,  however,  from  the  high- 
est point  of  view,  be  regarded  as  different 
modes  of  one  kind." 

"Every  living  body,"  he  adds  (p.  511), 
"  exhibits,  in  a  four-fold  form,  the  process 
[of  equilibration]  we  are  tracing  out  — 
exhibits  it  from  moment  to  moment  in 
the  balancing  of  mechanical  forces;  from 
hour  to  hour  in  the  balancing  of  func- 
tions; from  year  to  year  in  the  changes 
[    249    ] 


BALANCE 

of  state  that  compensate  changes  of  con- 
dition; and  finally  in  the  complete  arrest 
of  vital  movements  at  death." 

Mr.  Spencer  adds  (p.  515)  :  "Groups  of 
organisms  display  this  universal  tendency 
towards  a  balance  very  obviously."  Each 
society  "  displays  equilibration  in  the  con- 
tinuous adjustment  of  its  population  to 
its  means  of  subsistence  "  (p.  520).  "The 
various  industrial  actions  and  reactions" 
(p.  522),  "the  conflicts  between  conserv- 
atism and  reform"  (p.  526),  illustrate  the 
same  "tendency."  Later  (p.  527)  Mr.  Spen- 
cer speaks  of  "  the  law  of  equilibration." 

Again  Mr.  Spencer  says  (p.  497)  :  "That 
universal  coexistence  of  antagonist  forces 
which,  as  we  before  saw,  necessitates  the 
universality  of  rhythm,  and  which,  as  we 
before  saw,  necessitates  the  decomposition 
of  every  force  into  divergent  forces,  at  the 
same  time  necessitates  the  ultimate  estab- 
lishment of  a  balance." 

John  Fiske  (Cosmic  Philosophy,  ii.  64) 
[    250    ] 


APPENDIX 


says:  "Considered  in  the  widest  sense,  the 
processes  which  we  have  seen  to  coop- 
erate in  the  evolution  of  organisms  are  all 
processes  of  equilibration  or  adjustment." 
These  examples  of  the  comprehensive- 
ness of  balance  do  not,  however,  answer 
Dr.  Stewart's  request  for  a  definition  of 
balance  as  "the  fundamental  verity."  I 
am  well  aware  of  the  need  of  this  defi- 
nition, and  I  am  aware  also  that  it  will 
be  incomplete  without  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  relations  of  balance  to  other 
fundamental  conceptions,  and  more  par- 
ticularly to  theistic  conceptions,  of  the 
cosmic  order.  I  have  no  desire  to  ignore 
these  relations.  Indeed,  it  is  my  design  to 
consider  them  in  a  subsequent  inquiry; 
but  I  cannot,  without  extending  this  in- 
vestigation beyond  what  appears  to  me  to 
be  its  natural  and  reasonable  limits,  con- 
sider them  here.  For  the  present  I  shall 
define  balance  tentatively,  in  its  funda- 
mental sense,  as  that  'principle  or  order 
[    ^51     ] 


BALANCE 

—  manifest  in  action  and  reaction,  cause 
and  effect,  antecedent  and  consequent; 
in  harmony  and  antagonism ;  in  attrac- 
tion and  repulsion;  in  the  law  of  aver- 
ages; in  correspondence;  in  correlation 

—  through  which  comes  universal  adjust- 
ment, 

4.  ''Out  of  Balance^"* 

"Balance  properly,"  says  Professor 
McGilvary,  "  means  a  state  in  which  the 
forces  tending  to  move  a  body  in  oppo- 
site directions  are  equal,  so  that  no  mo- 
tion results."  This  is  a  definition  more 
narrow  than  that  given  by  the  lexicogra- 
phers. Webster's,  the  Century  and  the 
Standard  dictionaries  authorize  the  use  of 
"  adjustment "  —  a  word  of  broad  mean- 
ing—  as  a  definition  of  balance.  A  state 
in  which  "  no  motion  results  "  —  which 
Professor  McGilvary  affirms  is  the  proper 
meaning  of  balance  —  has  no  existence. 
He  claims  that  I  used  the  word  balance 
[    252    ] 


APPENDIX 


in  this  sense  when  I  said  "a  man  out  of 
balance  falls."  I  see  no  analogy  between  a 
man  falling  and  a  state  in  which  "  no  mo- 
tion results."  The  statement,  "  a  man  out 
of  balance  falls,"  used  negligently  in  my 
first  edition  and  now  eliminated,  can  be 
criticised  on  other  and  better  grounds, 
since  it  appears  to  be  an  admission  that  a 
body  can  be  out  of  balance.  A  body  falls 
because  it  must  fall  to  remain  in  balance. 
If  a  book,  pushed  out  beyond  its  center 
of  gravity  on  the  edge  of  a  table,  should 
remain  stationary,  it  would  be  out  of  bal- 
ance. If  it  should  remain  suspended  in 
such  a  position,  then  balance  would  be 
defeated.  But  as  such  a  suspension  is 
unknown  in  experience,  balance  is  not 
defeated.  Since  all  things  are  in  motion, 
the  position  of  each  thing,  in  its  relations 
to  external  forces,  is  constantly  changing, 
and  balance  meets  each  change,  in  ac- 
cordance with  what  scientific  men  call  a 
moving  equilibrium.  The  physicists  will, 
[    253    ] 


BALANCE 


I  have  no  doubt,  sustain  the  view  that 
the  forces  of  balance  are  never  defeated, 
are  never  absent,  tardy  or  inefficient,  in 
physical  transformations. 

5.  Action  nvithout  Reaction. 

To  my  claim  that,  "  if  death  ends  all, 
then  the  individual  reaches  in  extinction 
a  point  where  moral  effect  fails  to  follow 
moral  cause,"  Professor  McGilvary  an- 
swers that,  while  the  man  who,  for  exam- 
ple, dies  in  the  commission  of  a  crime 
"  does  not  reap  in  his  own  person  the 
consequences  of  his  act,"  still  there  are 
consequences  external  to  him,  effects  fol- 
lowing his  very  last  act  preceding  his  ex- 
tinction. 

Two  sets  of  consequences  follow  the 
acts  of  the  individual.  One  set  includes 
the  reactions  upon  himself,  upon  his  own 
character;  the  other  set  includes  the  re- 
actions upon  things  external  to  himself. 
In  the  first  set  of  reactions  he  reaps  in- 
[    254    ] 


APPENDIX 


stantly  and  perfectly  as  he  sows,  his  char- 
acter being  debased  in  exact  proportion 
to  his  evil  acts,  and  improved  or  exalted 
in  exact  proportion  to  his  good  acts.  In 
this  chain  of  actions  and  reactions  we  may 
observe  the  perfect  working  of  the  law 
of  moral  accountability.  In  this  chain  the 
most  secret  thought,  intent  or  desire  of 
the  individual  —  the  hate  which  he  hides 
in  hypocrisy;  the  dishonesty  or  treachery 
which  he  harbors;  the  lust  known  only 
to  himself;  the  sacrifice  which  he  does 
not  proclaim;  the  sense  of  honor  and  duty 
which  he  cultivates  —  brings  its  own  im- 
mediate penalty  or  reward. 

The  other  chain  of  reactions  —  the  con- 
sequences external  to  the  individual  of  the 
acts  of  the  individual  —  are  equally  exact 
so  far  as  they  influence  externals,  but 
wholly  different  in  the  moral  summing 
up.  He  may  be  the  executor  of  an  estate, 
rob  the  heirs,  use  the  money  successfully 
in  speculation,  restore  his  stealings,  re- 
[     ^55     ] 


BALANCE 

ceive  the  gratitude  of  the  heirs  for  probity 
which  does  not  exist,  and  die  honored 
and  respected,  leaving  behind  him  a  repu- 
tation for  rectitude  which  has  no  just 
foundation. 

It  is  the  first  chain  of  actions  and  reac- 
tions —  the  only  real  foundation  for  the 
law  of  moral  accountability  —  which  is 
snapped  asunder  by  the  annihilation  of 
the  individual  in  death,  leaving  an  action 
without  a  reaction,  as  is  well  illustrated  in 
the  case  of  a  suicide.  The  individual  re- 
ceives in  his  own  character  the  perfect 
reaction  of  every  act  of  his  life  up  to  a 
certain  point,  and  then  he  pulls  a  trigger, 
and,  lo,  there  is  no  reaction!  The  chain 
is  broken.  If  death  ends  all,  the  law  of 
action  and  reaction  has  its  exception;  Na- 
ture's forces  are  not  compensatory;  moral 
accountability  is  a  fiction;  eternal  justice 
is  a  delusion. 

Professor  McGilvary  uses  the  illustra- 
tion of  a  falling  body  which,  when  arrested, 
[    ^56    ] 


APPENDIX 


does  not  contain  all  of  the  heat  generated 
by  its  motion. 

"  If  the  physicist  in  studying  this  phenomenon 
were  to  say  after  measuring  the  heat  of  the  arrested 
body,  *  I  do  not  find  here  full  compensation  for  the 
arrested  motion ;  hence  let  us  wait  till  the  next  world, 
and  then  we  shall  find  the  deficiency  made  good,'  he 
would  be  proceeding  as  our  author  proceeds  when, 
failing  to  find  that  the  criminal  suffers  here  the  con- 
sequences of  his  sin,  he  tells  us  that  *  there  shall  come 
a  day  of  reckoning  for  the  tyrant  and  the  torturer.' " 

The  physicist  does  not  say  in  this  case, 
"  Let  us  wait  till  the  next  world,  and  then 
we  shall  find  the  deficiency  made  good," 
but  he  does  say,  "  The  deficiency  which 
we  find  here  must  be  made  good  else- 
where. No  force  can  be  annihilated.  That 
which  seems  to  be  lost  is  not  lost.  Though 
we  cannot  see  it  or  find  it,  we  know  that 
it  exists.  The  law  of  compensation  de- 
mands its  persistence;  the  balance  of  the 
forces  of  Nature  assures  us  that  it  will  not 
die."  Religion  dares  to  say  as  much,  and 
only  as  much,  of  the  soul. 
[    257    ] 


BALANCE 


6.  Every  Action  is  Immortal, 

Mrs.  Gilman  says  that,  if  there  were  no 
market  for  crops,  there  would  be  no  effect 
in  prices  corresponding  to  excess  or  defi- 
ciency in  crops.  I  have  used  the  word 
"  crops  "  in  the  sense  of  products  market- 
able. If  one  should  produce  a  crop  for 
which  there  would  be  no  demand,  the  ex- 
cess would  still  produce  a  corresponding 
deficiency.  The  crop  would  be  worthless. 
My  critic  adds: 

"  He  quotes  from  various  authors,  citing  historic 
instances  to  show  that  acts  of  cruelty  and  wrong 
produce  an  equal  reaction  in  later  days ;  that  the 
French  aristocracy  caused  the  Revolution,  and  Napo- 
leon resulted  in  Waterloo.  Now,  if  the  evil  acts  of 
human  beings  have  their  inevitable  reactions  here, 
is  it  then  claimed  that  they  have  other  and  different 
reactions  afterward?  Do  they  react  twice  —  first  in 
their  visible  consequences  upon  other  persons,  then 
in  invisible  consequences  to  the  same  persons  ? " 

On  a  preceding  page  I  have  discussed 
the  internal  and  external  consequences  of 
[    ^58    ] 


APPENDIX 


the  actions  of  the  individual.  Externally 
the  individual  acts  upon  society,  of  which 
he  forms  a  part.  Each  reaction  becomes 
an  action  which  produces  other  reactions; 
hence  the  acts  of  each  individual  must 
have  some  unceasing  influence  upon  so- 
ciety and  upon  material  things.  One  flips 
to  the  winds  the  ashes  of  a  cigar.  That 
action  changes  the  relations  of  matter 
forever.  Every  action  is,  in  its  unend- 
ing consequences,  immortal.  The  internal 
consequences  of  the  actions  of  the  indi- 
vidual —  the  reactions  upon  his  own  na- 
ture and  character  —  are  alike  persistent. 
They  react  ceaselessly,  in  numberless  con- 
sequences of  consequences. 

7.  "  The  Ultimate  Major  Premiss^'' 

"  Deduction,"  says  Dr.  Knox,  "  shows 
an  antecedent  for  every  consequent  and  is 
contented  only  when  all  the  antecedents 
can  be  detected  and  verified."  This  is  cor- 
rect in  a  general,  but  not  in  the  very  strict- 
[    259    ] 


BALANCE 


est,  sense.  Since  there  are  antecedents  of 
antecedents  back  to  infinity,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  discover  all,  even  in  the 
simplest  case  of  reasoning.  The  same  may 
be  said,  even  with  more  force,  of  reason- 
ing through  consequences,  since  there  will 
be  consequences  on  to  infinity,  most  of 
them  as  yet  unknown.  Reasoning  would 
break  down  completely,  in  view  of  these 
facts,  but  for  one  important  consideration 
—  the  uniformity  of  Nature  —  which,  as 
John  Stuart  Mill  says,  "  will  appear  as  the 
ultimate  major  premiss  of  all  inductions." 
Recognizing  a  grain  of  corn,  I  recognize 
that,  because  of  the  uniformity  of  Nature, 
its  antecedents  are  the  same  as  the  ante- 
cedents of  all  corn,  and  I  can  trace  its  his- 
tory in  the  history  of  all  corn  so  far  as  that 
history  is  known.  In  the  same  way,  I  am 
absolutely  sure  concerning  its  potential 
consequences  —  that,  planted,  it  may  pro- 
duce an  ear  of  corn,  that  this  ear  planted 
may  produce  more  corn,  that  the  increas- 
[    260    ] 


APPENDIX 


ing  product  may  be  turned  into  food  in 
various  forms,  with  consequent  benefits, 
or  into  whisky,  with  consequent  misery 
and  perhaps  crime,  etc. 

8.    The  Galveston  Disaster, 
Dr.  Deutsch  says: 

"Thus  both  the  moral  and  the  physical  world 
show  the  truth  of  the  law  of  compensation  and 
prove  that  'balance  rules  the  world.'  On  the  other 
hand,  the  individual  is  not  benefited  by  it.  While 
Long  Island  is  protected  by  the  sea,  other  shores 
have  been  washed  away,  islands  have  been  sub- 
merged, and  the  lives  lost  and  the  property  de- 
stroyed by  the  tidal  wave  at  Galveston,  September  9, 
1900,  are  not  compensated  by  the  dunes  of  Long 
Island.  True  it  is  that  the  ecclesiastic  tyranny  of 
Gregory  VII.  and  Innocent  III.  led  to  the  Refor- 
mation, and  finally  to  the  principle  of  religious  tol- 
eration inaugurated  by  Spinoza  and  acknowledged 
in  all  constitutions  since  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. But  has  this  fact  benefited  individually 
the  hundreds  of  thousands  burned  at  the  stake, 
scourged  and  tortured,  robbed  of  their  property  and 
made  miserable  by  social  and  political  ostracism, 
all  on  account  of  their  religious  belief  ? " 
[     ^61     ] 


BALANCE 

I  used  the  conflict  between  the  ocean 
and  the  shore  of  Long  Island  as  an  illus- 
tration of  excess  defeating  itself.  I  do  not, 
of  course,  claim  that  the  land  is  always 
victorious  in  a  contest  with  the  sea.  We 
are  apt  to  look  with  partiality  upon  the 
land  since  it  is  essential  to  our  exist- 
ence, and  because  it  seems  to  be  less 
belligerent  than  the  sea,  but  we  must 
admit  that  excess  may  exist  in  the  land 
as  well  as  the  sea,  and  that,  if  the  land 
encroaches  upon  the  sea,  the  sea  may 
also  encroach  upon  the  land.  The  whole 
of  Long  Island  was  perhaps  originally 
composed  of  dunes  and  is  a  conquest  of 
the  sea.  We  cannot  assume  that  balance 
is  defeated  if  we  find  a  corresponding 
conquest  of  the  land  by  the  sea.  Doubt- 
less the  solid  ground  of  Long  Island 
was  contributed  by  "other  shores''  which 
"have  been  washed  away."  What  the 
land  gained  in  one  place,  it  lost  in  another. 
The  ocean  robbed  the  New  Jersey  coast, 
[    262    ] 


APPENDIX 


and  yielded  its  prey  to  Long  Island,  fur- 
nishing a  beautiful  illustration  of  Mr. 
Markham's  theory  that  "the  thief  picks 
his  own  pocket." 

The  destruction  at  Galveston  is  cer- 
tainly "  not  compensated  by  the  dunes 
of  Long  Island."  If,  however,  my  critic 
should  visit  Galveston  now,  he  would  find 
that  city  protected  by  a  formidable  sea 
wall.  The  present  security  is  the  conse- 
quence of  the  destructive  inundation  of 
1900.  Again,  excess  has  set  at  work 
forces  to  defeat  itself.  Life  was  always 
insecure  in  Galveston  before  the  great 
flood;  now,  because  of  the  disaster,  the 
people  are  safe  from  the  sea. 

But  what  of  the  lives  lost  in  Galves- 
ton? of  the  hundreds  of  thousands  burned 
at  the  stake  during  the  dark  ages?  my 
critic  asks.  Where  shall  we  look  for  their 
compensation  ?  These  are  important  ques- 
tions which  cannot  be  answered  briefly. 
I  have  tried  to  answer  them  elsewhere. 
[    263    ] 


BALANCE 

I  will  say,  however,  in  passing,  that  reli- 
gion denies  that  these  victims  of  the  vio- 
lence of  Nature  or  of  the  fiendishness  of 
man  are  really  dead.  Religion  affirms  that 
floods  do  not  drown,  that  fire  does  not 
consume,  the  soul. 

9.  ^^Minor^^  or  ^' Fundament aV* 

The  question  may  be  raised  whether 
all  of  the  preceding  topics  are  correctly 
classed  by  me  as  "Minor  Issues." 

My  theme  is  the  fundamental  har- 
mony between  science  and  natural  reli- 
gion. This  harmony,  if  it  exists,  can  be 
discovered  only  by  inquiring  what  is  fun- 
damental in  science  on  the  one  hand, 
and  what  is  fundamental  in  religion  on 
the  other  hand,  and  by  a  final  compari- 
son of  the  results  of  these  two  inquiries. 
I  have  pursued  this  method,  and  have 
reached  definite  conclusions.  It  follows 
that  a  fundamental  criticism  of  my  posi- 
tion must  attack  one,  or  more  than  one, 
[    264    ] 


APPENDIX 


of  my  three  conclusions:  (i)  my  conclu- 
sion concerning  the  foundations  of  sci- 
ence; or  (2)  my  conclusion  concerning 
the  foundations  of  religion;  or  (3)  my 
conclusion  concerning  the  resulting  har- 
mony between  science  and  religion.  The 
criticisms  which  I  have  considered  up  to 
this  point  have  challenged  none  of  these 
three  fundamental  conclusions ;  and  con- 
sequently these  criticisms  are  classed  cor- 
rectly as  minor  in  their  relations  to  my 
main  position. 


[    265    ] 


II.  FUNDAMENTAL  ISSUES. 

I  shall  now  consider  the  criticisms  touch- 
ing directly  the  three  fundamental  ques- 
tions. 

The  First  Question. 

"  I.  Is  the  author  right  or  wrong  in  his 
conclusion  that  scientific  experience  and 
the  higher  interpretations  of  the  system  of 
Nature  point  distinctly  to  one  fundamental 
interpretation  —  the  return  of  equivalence 
and  compensation  in  all  interactions  "^  " 

Of  this  issue  Professor  Hibben  says  that 
I  have  overlooked 

"  the  dissipation  of  available  energy  and  the  newly 
discovered  radio-activity,  which  seems  to  be  accom- 
panied by  no  equivalent  consumption." 

If  it  should  be  true  that  there  is  a  dis- 
sipation of  available  energy  which  is  re- 
ducing the  total  energy  of  the  universe, 
and  if  it  be  true  also  that  the  newly  dis- 
covered radio-activity  is  really  accompa- 
[    266    ] 


APPENDIX 


nied  by  no  equivalent  consumption,  then 
these  discoveries  would  overthrow  New- 
ton's axiom  concerning  the  reciprocity 
of  action  and  reaction,  and  also  the  law 
of  the  conservation  of  energy,  and  other 
fundamental  concepts  now  accepted  by 
science  as  essential  to  the  comprehension 
of  the  processes  of  Nature.  I  must  deny, 
however,  that  any  instance  of  an  actual 
loss  of  energy,  or  of  a  failure  of  the  law  of 
action  and  reaction,  is  known  to  science. 

Dr.  Knox  says  that  the  theory  of  balance 
—  "  set  forth  in  varying  forms :  '  To  every 
action  there  is  an  equal  and  opposite  reac- 
tion;' 'Effects  follow  causes  in  unbroken 
succession;'  '  Matter  is  indestructible;' 
*  Force  is  persistent  and  indestructible,' 
etc."  —  "  belongs  to  a  region  incapable  of 
proof."  Dr.  Knox  questions  the  demon- 
strability  of  the  fundamental  conceptions 
of  science.  He  does  not  question  their 
truth  or  value;  indeed,  he  characterizes 
[    267    ] 


BALANCE 

these  judgments  as  "  universal  and  neces- 
sary "  and  to  science  fundamental.  The 
fundamental  judgments  of  science  are  not 
speculations;  they  are  the  substantial  re- 
sults of  scientific  experience.  They  are, 
I  believe,  in  the  highest  degree  demon- 
strable, being  the  inevitable  and  well  tried 
deductions  from  all,  or  nearly  all,  scientific 
experimentation  and  observation. 

The  Second  Question, 

"  2.  Is  the  author  right  or  wrong  in  his 
conclusion  that  the  moral  accountability 
of  the  individual,  extended  into  a  future 
life,  is  fundamental  in  religion  ?  " 

Dr.  Deutsch  says: 

"  Nor  is  it  true  that  a  belief  in  life  after  death  is 
the  basis  of  all  religion,  as  Mr.  Smith  states  on  the 
authority  of  Grant  Allen,  and  the  best  proof  to  the 
contrary  is  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially 
the  books  of  Job  and  Ecclesiastes." 

I  have  not  asserted  that  a  belief  in  a 
future  life  is  "  the  basis  of  all  religion,"  but 
I  do  claim  that  the  recognition  of  a  future 
[    268    ] 


APPENDIX 


life  is  one  of  the  foundations  of  religion. 
I  have  discussed  (p.  113)  the  materialism 
of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  and  shown  that 
Judaism  in  time  repudiated  its  early  ma- 
terialism and  accepted  the  doctrine  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  Dr.  Deutsch  sets 
this  conversion  back  fourteen  hundred 
years  before  the  time  of  Maimonides,  to 
which  I  referred.  If  he  is  right  in  this,  he 
has  strengthened  my  case  by  showing  that 
the  Hebrews  revolted  against  the  doctrine 
of  annihilation  at  a  much  earlier  time  than 
that  indicated  in  my  statement.  I  might 
take  issue  with  Dr.  Deutsch  concerning  the 
time  of  the  complete  and  formal  repudia- 
tion of  materialism  by  the  Hebrew  church, 
but  the  question  is  immaterial  here.  The 
fact  of  the  conversion  is  important;  its 
date  is  unimportant. 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  by  the  his- 
tory of  religion,  and  by  an  analysis  of  the 
essence    and    substance    of   religion,  that 
materialism  is  an   irreligious   doctrine.    I 
[    269    ] 


BALANCE 

have  admitted  that  it  has  been  taught,  in 
rare  and  exceptional  cases,  as  a  religious 
doctrine,  even  as  other  irreligious  theories 
have  been  advanced  in  the  name  of  reli- 
gion. In  one  or  two  of  the  many  organiza- 
tions classed  as  religious,  of  which  we  have 
accurate  knowledge,  materialism  was  ac- 
cepted for  a  time;  in  none  has  it  survived. 
Dr.  Deutsch  contends,  apparently,  that 
materialism  cannot  be  designated  as  irre- 
ligious, since  it  was  accepted  by  the  early 
Hebrews.  But  it  is  rejected  by  the  later 
Hebrews,  who  have  adopted  the  opposite 
doctrine,  that  the  soul  survives  death.  If 
the  soul  survives  death,  then  the  theory  of 
materialism  is  erroneous.  The  creed  of 
modern  Judaism,  in  accepting  the  survival 
of  the  soul,  declares  that  the  materialism 
of  the  early  Hebrews  is  erroneous.  That 
which  is  erroneous  cannot  be  religious. 

Dr.  Riggs  challenges  and   resents   my 
definition  of  religion.    He  says: 
[    270    ] 


APPENDIX 


"  The  gratuitous  salvation  of  a  repentant  and 
trustful  man,  no  matter  what  has  been  his  past  rec- 
ord, has  transformed  so  many  lives  and  renovated 
so  many  characters  that  it  seems  strange  that  any 
intelligent  man  should  say,  as  the  author  does  in  the 
last  sentence  of  his  book,  '  The  consequences  of  hu- 
man action  are  as  definite  as  the  consequences  of 
chemical  action ;  that  the  laws  of  equivalence  and 
compensation  which  operate  in  the  realm  of  physics 
act  with  the  same  unfailing  certainty,  and  with  the 
same  eternal  ceaselessness,  upon  the  soul  of  man.' " 

Commenting  upon  this  quotation  from 
me,  Dr.  Riggs  says: 

"  This  would  indeed  be  the  sad  and  hopeless  con- 
dition of  man  were  it  not  for  the  good  news  which 
the  Gospel  of  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ  intro- 
duced into  the  world  for  the  purpose  of  delivering 
mankind  from  such  hopelessness  under  law." 

Dr.  Riggs  expresses  his  views  with 
commendable  clearness  and  candor.  His 
understanding  of  the  meaning  of  religion 
—  expressed  in  the  doctrine  of  "gratui- 
tous salvation,"  and  in  his  theory  that  the 
"  condition  of  man  "  would  be  "  sad  and 
[    271    ] 


BALANCE 

hopeless"  if  the  individual  were  compelled 
to  reap  as  he  sows  —  is  so  completely  an- 
tipodal to  my  position  that  controversy 
on  this  issue  would  be  profitless  here. 
Having  presented  Dr.  Riggs's  dissent,  I 
decline  combat. 

The  Third  Question. 

"3.  Is  the  author  right  or  wrong  in 
his  conclusion  that  the  scientific  concep- 
tion of  physical  action  as  ceaseless  and 
compensatory  is  identical  with  the  reli- 
gious conception  of  human  action  as  be- 
ing also  ceaseless  and  compensatory;  in 
other  words,  is  Newton's  axiom,  *To 
every  action  there  is  an  equal  reaction,' 
the  counterpart  of  the  religious  doctrine 
of  just  consequences  —  that  men  shall 
reap  as  they  sow?" 

Dr.  Schulman  protests  against 

"the  identification  of  physical  with  psychical  phe- 
nomena, facts  of  material  nature,  with  postulates  of 
thought  and  conscience,  things  really  distinct  and 
not  interpretable,  one  by  the  other." 

He  refers  later  to  "  the  incompatibility 
of  physical  law  with  moral  law." 
[    272    ] 


APPENDIX 


Professor  Hibben  also  says: 

"  What  is  proved  is  this  —  that  in  the  physical 
and  the  psychical  we  have  two  sets  of  radically  dis- 
parate phenomena." 

Dr.  Riggs  says  that  the  harmony  be- 
tween religion  and  science  will  be  com- 
pleted by  a  "  comprehension  of  all  religious 
phenomena  within  scientific,  but  not  natu- 
ralistic, results." 

The  language  in  these  quotations  is  the 
language  of  supernaturalism.  I  shall  not 
antagonize  the  theory  of  supernaturalism 
here,  save  by  saying  that  which  cannot 
well  be  left  unsaid  —  that  science  knows 
nothing  of  the  "  incompatibility  of  phys- 
ical law  with  moral  law,"  or  of  "  two  sets 
of  radically  disparate  phenomena,"  or  of 
any  phenomena  which  may  be  "  scientific, 
but  not  naturalistic." 

Assuming  the  truth  of  all  that  is  funda- 
mental in  the  theory  of  supernaturalism 
—  that  the  universe  is  ruled  by  a  su- 
preme Supernatural  Being,  omnipotent, 
[    273    ] 


BALANCE 

omniscient  and  omnipresent  —  we  must 
assume  also  that  the  processes  and  laws 
of  Nature  are  his  processes  and  laws.  If 
we  find  incompatibility  of  physical  law 
with  moral  law,  the  incompatibility  is  his ; 
if  we  find  conflicting  phenomena,  the  con- 
flict is  his.  If  we  find  order  in  Nature,  it 
is  his  order;  if  we  find  disorder,  it  is  his 
disorder;  if  we  find  universal  and  exact 
compensation  in  all  natural  processes,  we 
know  that  Nature  vindicates  him;  if  we 
find  that  natural  processes  are  not  com- 
pensatory, that  they  are  inexact  or  de- 
fective, we  know  that  Nature  condemns 
him. 

Why  do  these  critics  insist  that  God  has 
two  ways,  incompatible  or  disparate,  of 
governing  the  universe?  Are  both  ways 
just?  Then  they  are  not  incompatible  or 
disparate.  If  both  ways  are  just,  then  they 
are  one,  not  two.  Is  one  way  just,  and  the 
other  unjust  ?  Then  God  is  both  just  and 
unjust.- 

[    274    ] 


APPENDIX 


f 


If  my  critics  are  convinced  that  any  of 
Nature's  processes  are  not  compensatory, 
if  they  have  sought  in  vain  for  complete 
rectitude  in  natural  law,  then  they  do  well 
to  stand  by  the  truth  as  they  see  it;  but 
they  cannot  avoid  these  consequences  of 
their  position:  If  Nature's  processes  are 
not  compensatory,  then  God's  processes 
are  not  compensatory;  if  my  critics  have 
sought  in  vain  for  complete  rectitude  in 
natural  law,  then  they  have  sought  in  vain 
for  complete  rectitude  in  God.  They  can- 
not separate  God  from  Nature. 

Dr.  Stewart  says: 

"  Having  established  balance  in  the  physical  world 
as  a  scientific  principle  or  law  or  force,  and  in  the 
moral  and  religious  world  as  a  principle  or  law  or 
force,  he  completes  his  argument  by  showing  the 
identity  of  these  two  laws  or  principles  or  forces. 
In  other  words,  he  concludes  that  Newton's  axiom, 
*To  every  action  there  is  an  equal  reaction,'  is  the 
counterpart  of  the  religious  doctrine  of  just  conse- 
quences. He  sustains  his  contention  with  much  in- 
genuity and  many  illustrations.  But  his  argument  at 
[     275     ] 


BALANCE 


its  best  shows  only  an  analogy  between  the  physical 
and  moral  balance,  and  identity  is  not  proved  by 
analogy." 

The  scientific  conception  of  physical 
action  is  this:  It  is  ceaseless  and  com- 
pensatory. 

The  religious  conception  of  human 
action  is  this:  //  is  ceaseless  and  com- 
pensatory. 

If  Dr.  Stewart  had  set  these  two  con- 
ceptions in  close  comparison  with  each 
other,  as  in  the  two  preceding  paragraphs, 
he  would  have  concluded,  I  am  sure,  that 
they  are  identical,  not  analogous.  Both 
are  interpretations  of  one  law  —  the  law 
of  exact  consequences,  of  ceaseless  com- 
pensation. 

The  two  conceptions  are  not  identical 
by  accident.  The  uniformity  of  Nature  de- 
mands that  they  shall  be  identical. 

We  have  no  difficulty  in  thinking  of 
physical  consequences  as  exact.  All  ex- 
perience shows  that  they  are  exact.  Ex- 
.     [    ^76    ] 


APPENDIX 


tending  this  one  law  of  exact  consequences 
into  the  realm  of  the  soul,  we  perceive  that 
the  one  law  establishes  the  religious  theory 
of  moral  accountability,  and  the  rightness 
of  the  cosmic  order.  We  cannot  doubt 
that  this  one  law  is  that  which  religious 
thought  has  sought  to  comprehend  in  all 
stages  of  civilization,  and  with  increasing 
success  as  men  have  grown  in  knowledge 
and  grasped  higher  ideals.  The  very  same 
law  which  is  recognized  by  science  as  fun- 
damental in  the  physical  world,  establishes 
perfect  justice,  infinite  and  eternal,  when 
extended  into  the  world  of  souls.  Applied 
to  matter  and  force,  this  one  law  explains 
the  marvelous  order  in  the  material  uni- 
verse; applied  to  the  individual,  it  becomes 
the  noblest  philosophy  that  the  human 
mind  can  grasp.  For  it  explains  the  dark 
problem  of  evil,  and  it  vindicates  the  jus- 
tice of  God. 

Shall  we  say  that  this  one  law  operates 
only  in  the  physical  world  ?  Then  we  deny 
[    ^n    ] 


BALANCE 

the  uniformity  of  Nature.  Shall  we  say 
that  we  must  not  claim  compensation  for 
the  soul  because  we  cannot  follow  the  soul 
and  trace  out  its  complete  compensations  ? 
That  is  not  the  method  of  science.  New- 
ton did  not  affirm  that  gravitation  existed 
only  so  far  as  he  could  see  or  observe  it. 
He  affirmed  that  gravitation  was  universal. 
Modern  science  affirms  also  that  gravita- 
tion and  all  other  laws  and  ways  of  Nature 
are  universal.  The  science  of  astronomy 
has  advanced  only  through  the  postulation 
that  the  very  same  laws  of  gravitation  and 
of  cause  and  effect  operate  in  the  remotest 
parts  of  the  universe  as  they  operate  here 
—  that  these  laws  are  there  because  they 
are  here.  Scientific  minds  are  bold  and 
courageous  in  affirming  the  uniformity 
of  Nature.  Religious  minds  may  find  in- 
spiration and  good  example  in  this  lofty 
courage,  in  this  sublime  faith,  of  science. 
Religious  men  may  take  their  stand  also, 
firmly  and  impregnably,  upon  the  uniform- 
[    278    ] 


APPENDIX 


ity  of  Nature.  As  scientific  men  affirm 
that  the  law  is  the  same  here,  there  and 
everywhere,  and  that  distance  or  time  or 
transformation  cannot  change  the  law,  so 
religious  men  may  affirm  that  the  law  of 
compensation  is  there  beyond  the  grave 
because  it  is  here,  that  distance  or  time  or 
death  cannot  change  the  law. 


[    ^79    ] 


INDEX 


Accidents,  not  really  such,  85. 
Accountability,  moral,  a  funda- 
mental religious  belief ,  104-110, 
119,  120,  128,  130, 185  ;  a  prin- 
ciple recognized  by  law,  139, 
140 ;  transcends  individual  life, 
157;  perfect  working  of,  shown 
in  growth  of  character,  255, 256 ; 
agrees  with  cosmic  order,  277. 

Action  and  reaction,  universal,  15, 
20-22, 24,  25,  27,  28,  50-53,  120, 
142,  152,  165,254-257. 

Adams,  George  C,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  214-216. 

Allen,  Grant,  quoted,  on  immor- 
tality, III,  112. 

Alternatives,  balancing  of,  62-65. 

Alviella,  Eugfene  Goblet,  Comte 
d'.  See  Goblet  d' Alviella,  Eu- 
gfene,  Comte. 

Analogy,  method  of  reasoning  by, 
187. 

Annihilation  of  the  soul.  See 
Materialism. 

Answers  to  reviewers,  230-279 ; 
method  explained,  230-234 ; 
"  minor  issues,"  235-265  ;  "fun- 
damental issues,"  266-279. 

Antagonism  of  forces,  35-37. 

Antisthenes,  39. 

Archimedes's  law,  27. 

Aristotle,  quoted,  78. 

Astronomy,  illustrates  laws  of 
balance,  24. 

Attraction  and  repulsion,  17, 18. 

Bacon,  Francis,  his  attitude  to- 
ward the  Copernican  theory,  130. 

Balance,  shown  in  action  of  sea 
and  shore  on  each  other,  1-4  ;  in 
the  laws  of  chance,  4-7  ;  in  rela- 
tion of  crops  and  prices,  6,  7 ; 
everywhere  maintained,  1 2 ; 
rules  the  world,  22,  23 ;  forbids 

[      28 


a  victory  of  weakness  over 
strength,  57;  includes  order, 
right,  and  justice,  80-82 ;  is  su- 
preme and  single,  83 ;  failures 
of  balance  apparent  only,  84- 
91  ;  opinions  of  critics  on  the 
author's  statement  of  this  prin- 
ciple, 152-229 ;  definition,  248- 
252 ;  illustrations,  252. 

Beauty,  not  physical  alone,  74. 

Brahma,  117. 

Brinton,  quoted,  on  duty,  no; 
on  communion  of  man  with 
spiritual  powers,  112. 

Buddhism,  116,  117. 

Bums,  Robert,  his  hold  on  our 
affection,  95. 

Buying  and  selling,  moral,  73-77. 

Caesar,  hero  of  the  pagans,  45 ; 
references  to,  56,  Tj,  95. 

Caird,  Edward,  quoted,  on  devel-  I 
opment,  103,  104. 

Causality,  principle  of,  186,  187. 

Causation,  law  of,  54,  82. 

Cause  and  effect,  16,  17,  120. 

Chance,  laws  of,  4-7. 

Chemistry,  illustrates  laws  of  bal- 
ance, 24-26. 

Chinese,  their  belief  in  a  future 
life,  114. 

Christ's  position  in  Protestant 
theology,  198,  200,  214.  See 
also  Christianity. 

Christianity,  brought  about  reac- 
tion from  pagan  excess,  44  ;  but 
excess  of  asceticism  developed 
in  its  own  ranks,  45  ;  form  of, 
set  forth  in  Balance,  198-200, 
208. 

Civilization,  progress  of,  37,  38, 
129. 

Clarke,  William  N.,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  197, 198,  233. 

«       ] 


INDEX 


Columbus,  95. 

Compensation,  fundamental  in 
Nature,  8 ;  always  existent  in 
the  physical  world,  28-30  ;  in 
human  life  also,  31-33,  76,  77, 
86  ;  but  incomplete  in  the  pres- 
ent life,  92-98  ;  recognized  by 
science,  129,  138;  sometimes 
swift,  sometimes  slow,  243-248  ; 
but  acting  to  eternity,  278,  279. 

Compensation,  Emerson's,  refer- 
ences to,  176,  185,  189. 

Confucius,  philosophy  of,  114, 140. 

Consequences,  law  of,  the  key  of 
all  action,  54-60 ;  recognition  of, 
in  primitive  religions,  106,  107; 
supremacy  of,  in  the  realm  of 
the  soul,  277. 

Convulsions  of  Nature  aU  have 
adequate  causes,  84,  85. 

Copemican  theory.  Bacon's  atti- 
tude toward,  130. 

Cosmic  Philosophy,  Fiske's,  quota- 
tion from,  on  equilibration,  250, 
251. 

Cousin,  Victor,  quoted,  on  justice, 

78-     .    .     . 
Credit,  in  business,  73. 

Creeds,  revision  of,  133. 

Criticisms  of  Balance:  the  Fun- 
damental Verity,  149-229. 

Crusades,  a  reaction  from  asceti- 
cism, 46  ;  results  of,  46. 

Curtis,  Edward  L.,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  194-196,  233. 

Cynics,  39. 

D' Alviella.  See  Goblet  d'Alviella, 
Eugfene,  Comte. 

Darwin's  theory  of  natural  selec- 
tion, 4. 

Decalogue,  effective  because  in  ac- 
cordance with  Nature,  60  ;  does 
not  always  aid,  64. 

Deduction,  method  of,  187,  259- 
261. 

Deutsch,  Gotthard,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  201-204  ;  author's 
reply  to,  261-264,  268-270. 

Dickens,  Charles,  quotation  from 
A  Tale  of  Two  Cities,  47,  48. 

Digby,  Sir  K.,  quoted,  on  reac- 
tion, 15. 

r   28 


Dilemmas,  moral,  63. 

Diogenes,  39. 

Discoverers,  the  heroes  of  later 

centuries,  46,  47. 
Dolbear,  Amos   E.,  his  criticism 

ol  Balance,  158-160. 
Drummond,  Henry,  reference  to 

his  work,  179,  215. 
Dualism  in  Nature,  41,  42,  82. 
Dunes  on  coast  of  Long  Island, 

1-4,  202,  222,  223,  262,  263. 
Duty,  77,  157. 

Earth,  motion  of,  12,  13. 

Ecclesiastes,  quotation  from,  204. 

Economic  science,  130. 

Effect  and  cause.  See  Cause  and 
effect 

Elijah,  the  prophet,  113. 

Eliot,  Samuel  A.,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  226-229. 

Emerson,  quoted,  on  dualism  in 
Nature,  33  ;  on  gravitation,  42  ; 
on  judgment,  76  ;  references  to 
his  Compensation,  ijb,  185, 189 ; 
his  inexactness  of  definition, 
192. 

Epicureanism,  38. 

Equilibration,  249-251. 

Equilibrium,  in  the  sense  of  rest, 
is  unknown,  9-12  ;  moving  equi- 
librium, 253. 

Error,  its  conflict  with  truth,  40, 
41  ;  caused  by  deficiency  or  ex- 
cess, 43 ;  disguises  itself  as  truth, 

135- 
Eternalism,  references  to,  1 5 1, 1 52, 

232. 

Evil,  located  in  deficiency  or  ex- 
cess, 43. 

Evolution,  principle  of,  18,  19,  82. 

Excess,  how  curbed  by  Nature, 
4-7 ;  even  in  virtue,  becomes 
evil,  43 ;  reaction  from  excess 
is  excess  in  op{>osite  direction, 
44-46. 

Fatalism,  68, 

Fetiches,  idols,  gods,  106, 109. 

First  Principles,  Spencer's,  quo- 
tations from,  on  equilibration, 
249,  250. 

2       ] 


INDEX 


Fiske,  John,  quoted,  on  equilibra- 
tion, 250,  251. 

Flint,  Robert,  quotations  from 
his  Philosophy  of  History,  49. 

Fools,  ignorant  of  consequences, 
57- 

Force,  persistent  and  indestruc- 
tible, 19,  20,  28,  82,  257, 

French  Revolution,  47,  48. 

Friendship,  price  of,  74. 

Future  life.  See  Immortality. 

Galveston,  Texas,  disaster  at,  202, 
261-264. 

Oilman,  Charlotte  Perkins,  her 
criticism  of  Balance,  182-184  > 
author's  reply  to,  258,  259. 

Gladiatorial  games  in  Rome,  44,  45, 

Goblet  d'Alviella,  Eugfene,  Comte, 
quoted,  on  judgment  of  the  dead, 
105  ;  on  subordination,  no  ;  on 
sacrifice  of  immediate  satisfac- 
tion to  greater  good,  no;  on 
belief  in  a  future  life,  112. 

God,  attributes  of,  118. 

Gold,  discovery  of,  in  California, 

49.  50- 
Golden  Rule,  the,  77,  157, 165. 
Gorgias,  39. 

Gravitation,  17,  18,  42,  217,  278. 
Gregory  VII.,  tyranny  of,  202. 
Guillotine,  47,  48. 

Haeckel,  Ernst  Heinrich,  his  word 

"  thanatism,"  141,  145. 
Hall,  Thomas  C,  his  criticism  of 

Balance,  205-207. 
Harmony,  in  Nature,  21,  22. 
Healing.     See  Medicine. 
Hebrews,  their  belief    in   spirits 

and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 

113,  114,  204,  269,  270. 
Hegel,  quoted,  on  "  progress   by 

antagonism,"  34 ;   reference   to 

his  philosophy,  205. 
Hibben,  John  Grier,  his  criticism 

of  Balance,  167-170;  author's 

reply  to,  266,  267,  273. 
Hindu  philosophy,  186,  188. 
Hippias,  39. 

History,  philosophy  of,  49. 
Hugo,  Victor,  quotation  from  Les 

Miserables,  48,  49. 


Human  life.  See  Life,  human. 

Huxley,  T.  H.,  quoted,  on  belief 
in  ghosts,  1 12 ;  his  teaching  of 
the  harmony  of  science  and  re- 
ligion, 215,  216. 

Idealism,  67, 68. 

Immigration,  a  chart  of  industrial 
conditions,  49,  50. 

Immortality  of  the  soul,  founda- 
tion for  hope  of,  8 ;  necessary 
to  complete  justice,  98,  166  ;  a 
primitive  and  fundamental  reli- 
gious belief,  iii-iij,  119,  120, 
128,  204 ;  denial  of,  140-143 ; 
inconclusive  argument  for,  152- 
154;  provides  for  conservation 
of  moral  forces,  1 72,  1 73  ;  scien- 
tific basis  for  belief  in,  177, 
208.    See  also  Soul. 

Innocent  III.,  tyranny  of,  202. 

Insight,  sometimes  anticipates 
science,  129. 

Interest,  73. 

lo  Victis,  by  Story,  quotation 
from,  93,  94. 

Jehovah,  117. 

Jews.     See  Hebrews. 

Job,  quotation  from,  204. 

Johnston,  Howard  Agnew,  his 
criticism  of  Balance,  212-214. 

Joule's  principle,  28. 

Judgment,  continual,  76. 

Jupiter,  117. 

Justice,  first  truth  of  morality,  78  ; 
balance  in  human  affairs,  81, 
82 ;  but  incomplete  in  present 
life,  92-98  ;  recognized  in  lowest 
religions,  132  ;  the  principle  of 
necessary  consequences,  157; 
effect  of  prevalence  of,  163. 

Kant,  Immanuel,  his  "  categor- 
ical imperative,"  ^^,  78,  157; 
his  argument  for  immortality, 
188. 

Karma,  law  of,  117,  186,  187,  224. 

Kepler's  law,  27,  130. 

Kidd,  Benjamin,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  154-158. 

Knox,  George  William,  his  criti- 
cism of  Balance,  185-189 ;  au- 


[       283       ] 


INDEX 


thor's  reply  to,  25^261,  267, 
268. 

Lavoisier,  founder  of  modem 
chemistry,  24,  25,  130. 

Law,  desired  to  prevent  excess 
or  deficiency,  88;  reference  to 
early  codes,  129,  130. 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  on  brutality  in 
Rome,  44  ;  quoted  on  laws 
against  sorcerers,  129,  130. 

Les  Miserable!,  Hugo's,  quota- 
tion from,  48,  49. 

Life,  human,  inequalities  of,  92- 
98 ;  form  argument  for  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  98. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  permanence  of 
his  influence,  95  ;  reference  to, 
242. 

Long  Island,  dunes  along  the 
coast  of,  1-4,  202,  222,  223,  262, 
263. 

Lucretius,  reference  to  his  philos- 
ophy,  155 

Lyra,  constellation  of,  13. 

Macdougall,  Robert,  his  criticism 
ol  Balance,  178-181. 

Macquer,  Pierre  Joseph,  130. 

Maimonides,  creed  of,  114. 

Mallock,  W.  H.,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  151-154,  232;  au- 
thor's reply  to,  235-243. 

Mangasarian,  Mangasar  M.,  his 
criticism  of  Balance,  160-164, 
232;  author's  reply  to,  243- 
248. 

Markham,  Edwin,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  164-167  ;  reference  to, 
263. 

Materialism,  philosophy  of,  140- 
145. 

Mathematics,  principle  of  equiva- 
lence in,  61. 

Matter,  indestructible,  19,  20. 

McGilvary,  Evander  B.,  his  criti- 
cism of  Balance,  1 74-1 76 ;  au- 
thor's reply  to,  252-257. 

Medicine,  science  of,  error  and 
truth  in,  127,  128. 

Menippus,  39. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  quoted,  on  uni- 
formity of  Nature,  260. 


Mohammed,  reference  to  his  idea 

of  paradise,  203. 
Monism,  219,  220. 
Montaigne,  on  witchcraft,  130. 
Moral  (Slemmas,  63. 
Moral  force  more  permanent  than 

physical,  52,  53- 
Moral  order,  158. 
Morveau,  Guyton  de,  130. 
Motion,   everywhere  existent,  7, 

10,  11  ;  ceaseless,  20,  21. 
Moxom,  Philip  S.,  his  criticism 

of  Balance,  207-209. 

Napoleon  I.,  48,  49, 9j. 

Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual 
World,  Drummond's,  reference 
to,  215. 

Nature,  uniformity  of,  260,  276, 
278. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  his  Third  Law 
of  Motion,  16,  20-22,  28,  152, 
165,  267 ;  his  discovery  of  gravi- 
tation,iS,  32, 217, 278 ;  his  fame, 

95- 

Newton,  R.  Heber,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  222-226. 

Nietzsche,  reference  to  his  philos- 
ophy, 155. 

Oceanj  the  force  of,  how  re- 
strained, 1-4. 

Odin,  117, 

Ohm's  law,  27. 

Old  Testament,  teaching  of,  on  im- 
mortality, 204. 

Omar  Khayyam,  reference  to,  11 5. 

Oratory,  power  of,  52. 

Order,  80,  81. 

Oxidation,  25. 

Pascal's  principle,  27. 

Phcedon,  Plato's,  reference  to, 
201. 

Pharisees,  their  belief  in  the  resur- 
rection, 204. 

Phenomena,  physical  and  psychic- 
al, disparity  of,  170. 

Philosophy  of  History,  Flint's, 
quotation  from,  49. 

Phlogiston,  25,  130. 

Pickpockets,  263. 

Planetary  motion,  130. 


[     *84     ] 


INDEX 


Plato,  quoted,  on  the  law  of  con- 
traries, 33,  references  to,  53, 186, 
187 ;  quoted,  on  justice,  78  ;  ref- 
erence to  his  Phcedon,  201. 

Polarity,  33,  34. 

Political  science,  not  fully  effec- 
tive, 130. 

Porter,  Noah,  his  definition  of  sci- 
ence, 217. 

Priestley,  Joseph,  discovered  oxy- 
gen, 32  ;  believed  in  "  phlogis- 
ton," 130. 

Primitive  Culture,  by  Tylor,  quo- 
tations from,  100,  104,  105. 

Printing  press,  46. 

Propitiation,  105,  106,  221. 

Prosperity,  business,  50. 

Protagoras,  ;j9. 

Public  speaking.    See  Oratory. 

Reaction.  See  Action  and  re- 
action. 

Reasoning,  province  and  methods 
of,  66-71. 

Reformation,  the,  a  reaction  from 
tyranny,  202. 

Religion,  its  universality  and  per-i 
manence,  99 ;  varying  concep- 
tions of,  101-103 ;  fundamental 
principles  of,  101-121 ;  inter- 
pretation of,  revealed  by  its  own 
I  history,  121,  122 ;  its  harmony 
with  science,  122,  123;  its  slow 
development,  125-133  ;  misin- 
terpretation of,  134-136  ;  single- 
ness of,  137  ;  strength  of,  meas- 
ured by  the  weakness  of  its 
denial,  138-143  ;  universality  of, 
denied,  203,  204. 

Repulsion  and  attraction,  17, 
18. 

Responsibility.  See  Accountabil- 
ity, moral. 

Resurrection,  doctrine  of,  in  Juda- 
ism, 204. 

Retribution,  doctrine  of,  184. 

Reviews  of  Balance :  the  Funda- 
mental Verity,  149-229. 

Rhythm  in  Nature,  159,  246- 
248,  250. 

Riggs,  Alexander  B.,  his  criticism 
oi  Balance,  198-200  ;  author's 
reply  to,  270-272,  273. 


Right,  81 ;  rules  the  world,  121- 

"3.  133.  137- 
Roget,  quoted,  34;  reference  to, 

82. 
Rose,  the,   Mallock's  illustration 

of,  154  ;  reply  to,  235-243. 

Sabatier,  quoted,  on  man's  re- 
ligious nature,  207. 

Samuel,  the  prophet,  113. 

Sand-dunes.    See  Dunes. 

Scales  never  weigh  with  infinite 
fineness,  9,  10. 

Schulman,  Samuel,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  219-222 ;  author's  re- 
ply to,  272,  273. 

Science,  nature  of,  124  ;  its  strug- 
gle with  error,  126,  127  ;  slow 
development  of,  129-131 ;  de- 
fends, not  antagonizes,  religion, 
134  ;  encourages  belief  in  im- 
mortality, 141,  142. 

Science  and  religion  in  harmony, 
122,  123,  134,  146,  188,  196  ; 
Mangpsarian's  opinion  on  this 
question,  161-163 ;  conflict  of, 
in  last  century,  217. 

Sciences,  physical,  principle  of 
equivalence  in,  61. 

Scott,  William  Henry,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  1 70-1 73 ;  acknowl- 
edgment   of    indebtedness    to, 

234- 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  reference 
to,  208. 

Serviss,  Garrett  P.,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  176-178. 

Shakespeare,  quoted,  161. 

Simeon  Stylites,  St.,  45,  56. 

Slavery  in  the  United  States,  cost 
of,  75,  76. 

Socrates,  permanence  of  his  in- 
fluence, 53;  quoted,  on  future 
life,  104. 

Sophists,  39. 

Sorcerers,  capital  punishment  of, 
129,  130. 

Soul,  the,  character  and  life  of, 
235-243.   See  also  Immortality, 

Spencer,  Herbert,  quoted,  on  evo- 
lution, 19 ;  on  action  and  re- 
action, 24  ;  on  immortality,  112, 
113;  on  religion,  100;  his  atti- 


C   285   ] 


INDEX 


tude  toward  immortality,  140  ; 
quoted,  on  equilibration,  249, 
250. 

Spinoza,  his  principle  of  religious 
toleration,  202. 

Stedman,  E.  C,  quoted,  on  Long- 
fellow, 216. 

Stevens,  C.  Ellis,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  216-219. 

Stevens,  George  Barker,  his  criti- 
cism of  Balance,  189-191,  232. 

Stewart,  George  B.,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  191-194 ;  author's 
reply  to,  248-252,  275,  276. 

Stoicism,  38. 

Stone,  James  S.,  his  criticism  of 
Balance,  209-212. 

Story,  W.  W.,  quotation  from  hb 
lo  Victis,  93,  94. 

Strauss,  David  Friedrich,  anecdote 
of,  201. 

Suarez,  the  Jesuit,  reference  to 
his  idea  of  hell,  203. 

Suicide,  143,  256. 

Supernaturalism,  273,  274. 

Supreme  Power,  belief  in,  115- 
122, 139. 

Syllogism,  67. 

Tale  of  Two  Cities,  A,  Dickens's, 
quotation  from,  47,  48. 

Talmud,  emphasizes  belief  in  res- 
urrection, 204. 

Telemachus,  ends  gladiatorial 
combats,  44. 


Tennyson,  Alfred,  quoted.  173. 

Thanatism.    See  Materialism. 

Trade,  principles  of,  72 ;  life 
made  up  of  buying  and  selling, 
73-76. 

Transformation,  continuous,  20. 

Truth,  its  conflict  with  error,  40, 
41 ;  excellence  of,  how  proved, 
59,  60 ;  equivalence  its  test,  in 
science,  61. 

Tylor,  Edward  B.,  quoted,  on 
universality  of  religion,  99,  100  ; 
on  future  reward  and  punish- 
ment, 104,  105 ;  on  fundamental 
beliefs,  1 1 1 . 

Tyranny,  causes  and  effects  of, 
88-91. 

Ultimate  major  premiss,  260. 
Uniformity,  m  Nature,  21,22,276, 
278,  279. 

Varuna,  117. 

Voorsanger,  Jacob,  his  criticism 
of  Balance,  184, 185. 

Weighing,    never   infinitely  fine, 

9,  10. 
Witchcraft,  widespread  belief  in, 

130. 
World-order,  right  or  wrong  ?  87. 
Wrong,  disguises  itself  as  right, 

135- 

Zeus,  117. 


[      286     ] 


EUctrotyptd  and  printed  by  H.  O.  Houghton  A»  Co. 
Cambridgt,  Mat*.,  U.S.  A. 


8D 


THE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


iMB^i^Tg^l 


RET'DJUN13l9a911 


Series  9482 


3  1205  00882  7675 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    000  889  21 1     9 


